Trying To Understand Atheism

[idav]

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.

Maybe but it is often seen as a naughty word like faith. There are all sorts of levels of faith.

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

It amounts to the same if I say I am of the opinion God exists. Not that atheists really have any use for faith in there opinion. Still doesn't an atheist think there right?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe but it is often seen as a naughty word like faith.

While that is somewhat true, a large part of the reason why is the insistence of many in forcing atheists into molds that to not suit them.

When people basically insist on doubting our own words and somehow hope that we "truly believe deep down" or somesuch, I think it is only fair to expect us to answer by basically saying not to saddle us with their unearned expectations.

There are all sorts of levels of faith.

There are also many contrasting understandings of faith. Several are quite unrelated to matters of belief in deities or in the supernatural.

It amounts to the same if I say I am of the opinion God exists. Not that atheists really have any use for faith in there opinion.

Some descriptions of faith are indeed very alien to most atheists.

Several others are just part of everyday life and don't really connect to matters of belief in deities in any way.

Still doesn't an atheist think there right?

I would advise you to avoid hurried, inaccurate dualisms. Matters of belief in the existence of deities are a very bad subject to be described in dualistic models.

For that matter, belief is not a very good connection to deity concepts to begin with. Even for those many people who have a strong vocation for it.

 

[Fool]

While that is somewhat true, a large part of the reason why is the insistence of many in forcing atheists into molds that to not suit them.

When people basically insist on doubting our own words and somehow hope that we "truly believe deep down" or somesuch, I think it is only fair to expect us to answer by basically saying not to saddle us with their unearned expectations.


There are also many contrasting understandings of faith. Several are quite unrelated to matters of belief in deities or in the supernatural.


Some descriptions of faith are indeed very alien to most atheists.

Several others are just part of everyday life and don't really connect to matters of belief in deities in any way.


I would advise you to avoid hurried, inaccurate dualisms. Matters of belief in the existence of deities are a very bad subject to be described in dualistic models.

For that matter, belief is not a very good connection to deity concepts to begin with. Even for those many people who have a strong vocation for it.

the problem isn't forcing, the problem is language and action.

a position of indifference is still a position of belief from which the actor evolves.

the scientific method follows the same with a hypothesis.

and everyone knows that Love transcends space and time. Kingdoms arise and fall, but love remains.

it is the WAY of all, the Higher Law, the Higher Power

 

[jonathan180iq]

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 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.

Yes. The dichotomy that you've constructed is rather perplexing - so I can understand your confusion.

You've been given all of the various answers that I could posit here, so I've not much to add.
There are weak atheists and strong atheists. As long as we're all willing to admit that the likely hood of gods existing in the Universe is currently equal to the likelihood of Cosmic Unicorns existing in the Universe, then I'm happy.

 

[Willamena]

I began with "implicit atheism" because I had no religious training whatsoever.
But upon learning of religion, I became "explicit".
It's no mere word game....it's a description of what happened & what is.
Why object to it?

"Implicit" and "explicit," in this context, don't refer to you. They refer to atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

the problem isn't forcing, the problem is language and action.

a position of indifference is still a position of belief from which the actor evolves.

Quite possibly... if there is enough to the idea being proposed to sustain some position of belief.

That is often not the case with many popular proposals of god-belief. They lack logical sense, internal coherence or even clarity of meaning to warrant some stance of belief - even doubt as such. There is just not enough substance in them.

the scientific method follows the same with a hypothesis.

Hypothesis refer to the objective word.

Belief stances are an entirely different thing. By their own nature intensely subjective and personal and should be respected on their own terms.

An important yet often violated part of that respect involves refusing to force them into the category of "obvious objective reality".

and everyone knows that Love transcends space and time. Kingdoms arise and fall, but love remains.

Nope, not everyone has affinity for love-as-the-pantheist-god views.

Even if everyone did, that would still be a matter of faith as opposed to knowledge.

it is the WAY of all, the Higher Law, the Higher Power

Not too bad a belief. Still a belief as opposed to objective reality, nevertheless.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Implicit" and "explicit," in this context, don't refer to you. They refer to atheism.

I know.
That's how I used the terms.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Absence isn't a negation, though.

 

[idav]

While that is somewhat true, a large part of the reason why is the insistence of many in forcing atheists into molds that to not suit them.

When people basically insist on doubting our own words and somehow hope that we "truly believe deep down" or somesuch, I think it is only fair to expect us to answer by basically saying not to saddle us with their unearned expectations.


There are also many contrasting understandings of faith. Several are quite unrelated to matters of belief in deities or in the supernatural.


Some descriptions of faith are indeed very alien to most atheists.

Several others are just part of everyday life and don't really connect to matters of belief in deities in any way.


I would advise you to avoid hurried, inaccurate dualisms. Matters of belief in the existence of deities are a very bad subject to be described in dualistic models.

For that matter, belief is not a very good connection to deity concepts to begin with. Even for those many people who have a strong vocation for it.

Some good points. Theism is a bit different in that there would be an assumed amount of agnosticism in both camps. I do accept that atheism can be based on nonbelief but not so much with learned individuals. There is no harm in leaning one way or another and thinking we may be right which can be done while still acknowledging lack of full knowledge.

 

[crossfire]

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.

I would venture to say that this type of atheism is the ironic belief in lack of belief. (Aversion to belief.)

 

[Fool]

Quite possibly... if there is enough to the idea being proposed to sustain some position of belief.

That is often not the case with many popular proposals of god-belief. They lack logical sense, internal coherence or even clarity of meaning to warrant some stance of belief - even doubt as such. There is just not enough substance in them.



Hypothesis refer to the objective word.

Belief stances are an entirely different thing. By their own nature intensely subjective and personal and should be respected on their own terms.

An important yet often violated part of that respect involves refusing to force them into the category of "obvious objective reality".



Nope, not everyone has affinity for love-as-the-pantheist-god views.

Even if everyone did, that would still be a matter of faith as opposed to knowledge.



Not too bad a belief. Still a belief as opposed to objective reality, nevertheless.

there are 3 viewpoints, positive, negative, and indifferent. i'm not speaking of a god, i'm speaking on beliefs. a belief system does not require a god.


one can be indifferent to another's empathy but one is not indifferent to the affection/empathy of all. that would be nihilistic; which is a choice to believe.

only a comatose, unconscious, person is without choice.

 

[Fool]

I would venture to say that this type of atheism is the ironic belief in lack of belief. (Aversion to belief.)

otherwise known as a choice of indifference to gods. indifference is still an active choice

 

[ArtieE]

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

You can have the belief that one or more gods exist (theist), you can have the belief that gods don't exist (strong atheist) or you can simply say you don't believe either for example for lack of evidence either way. (Weak atheist).

 

[McBell]

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

Sounds like you are saying the map is the terrain.

 

[ArtieE]

otherwise known as a choice of indifference to gods. indifference is still an active choice

This is apatheism.

 

[ArtieE]

otherwise known as a choice of indifference to gods. indifference is still an active choice

I have also actively chosen to be indifferent to stamp collecting.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Yes, anyone can play that game; as a theist, I can simple label myself an a-naturalist: I make no claim, I simply refuse to believe in naturalistic causes for the universe until it's proven.

(and meanwhile default to the obvious alternative)

why don't theists do this? because when you are willing and able to defend your own positive assertion, on it's own merits, there is no need to try to shift the burden of proof away from yourself.

 

[Fool]

This is apatheism.

ism of something

http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=ism&allowed_in_frame=0

ism (n.)
"distinctive doctrine, theory, or practice," 1670s, the suffix -ism used as an independent word, chiefly disparagingly. Related: Ismatical. By the same path, ist is from 1811.

 

[Fool]

I have also actively chosen to be indifferent to stamp collecting.

but are you actively indifferent to everything; including self, not excluding self?

don't get hung up on the form at the expense of the actions.

Look!! Look !!! objectively

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't know what color shirt you're wearing. Therefore, I don't believe that you're wearing a blue shirt. Nor, do I believe that you aren't.

What color shirt do you believe I'm wearing?