Trying To Understand Atheism

[ArtieE]

ism of something

Good point. There really is no such thing as "atheism" only atheists. The definition of "ism" is "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement." Not being a theist is no more an "ism" than not being a stamp collector is an "ism".

 

[McBell]

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.

There is not need to "defend" my position.
Until you can convince me your claim has validity, it is completely rational to reject the claim.

Problem is that there are far to many theists who feel their god is a weak pathetic being that has to be defended against the mighty atheist.
Sadly, most theists who feel their deity so weak only compound the problem with their feeble attempts.
Lowering the standard for evidence so far as to render the word meaningless.

 

[Fool]

Good point. There really is no such thing as "atheism" only atheists. The definition of "ism" is "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement." Not being a theist is no more an "ism" than not being a stamp collector is an "ism".

everyone, everyone has a belief system, set of principles, code of conduct. each being a person, an actor from experience and some from flashes of insight. some atheists follow the same moral ideas of some theists. some theists follow the mores of atheists

been here, done it, got the T-shirt

 

[ArtieE]

everyone, everyone has a belief system, set of principles, code of conduct.

Never said otherwise. But atheist just means that the person has an absence of belief in the existence of gods. It says nothing about his belief system, set of principles or code of conduct.

 

[Fool]

Never said otherwise. But atheist just means that the person has an absence of belief in the existence of gods. It says nothing about his belief system, set of principles or code of conduct.

agreed

 

[viole]

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.

Alright. Maybe you are right. God is merely unlikely. I would say that the probability that God created the Universe is equal to the probability of the Universe having been created by Superman. Or by an invisible giant turtle named Bob, or was it Alice?. Among many things. Lacking evidence for the positive claim necessarily entail that Bob and God have the same a priori probability.

So, I lack belief in God in the same way I lack belief in the Universe-creating invisible giant turtle named Bob. Or Alice.

Better? Am I promoted to agnostic now?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

It says nothing about his belief system, set of principles or code of conduct.

The same applies to the word "theist".
It is when you get to the labels under the umbrella that the "system", principles, etc. come into play.

 

[1137]

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.

Ok. What do you believe on the subject right this moment?

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.

If you do not have any reasonable expectation of any gods exist, why can you not say "I believe there are no gods?" They're the same thing.

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.

If you do not believe gods exist, and you see no reason to believe that gods exist, why do you not believe that no gods exist?

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.

So you are unwilling to say you believe cosmic unicorns do not exist? Really?

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).

If there is a lack of evidence both ways, or you believe you can't know either way, you are agnostic. This is not the same as atheism, and you're clearly trying to make it seems like there is no agnostic theism. True neutrality would require no leaning either way. Atheists tend to clearly state that there is no evidence for gods that holds up, that if you investigate the evidence and reasoning it falls flat, and so they see no reason to accept or believe in gods. This is not agnosticism, even if you are honest enough to admit you don't KNOW either way. But you still believe one way over the other.

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?

I have no way of investigating what color shirt you are wearing. I do not believe you are not wearing a blue shirt because I don't and cant know. This is true agnosticism. If you have reasoning for not believing the shirt is blue, and atheists certainly claim to have reasoning for believing there are no gods, then you can be an a-bluist.

Alright. Maybe you are right. God is merely unlikely. I would say that the probability that God created the Universe is equal to the probability of the Universe having been created by Superman. Or by an invisible giant turtle named Bob, or was it Alice?. Among many things. Lacking evidence for the positive claim necessarily entail that Bob and God have the same a priori probability.

So, I lack belief in God in the same way I lack belief in the Universe-creating invisible giant turtle named Bob. Or Alice.

Better? Am I promoted to agnostic now?

Ciao

- viole

As rude as always I see. Are you really not able to state you believe superman did not create universe? Not that you know he didn't, but what do you believe about superman creating the universe?

 

[McBell]

Good point. There really is no such thing as "atheism" only atheists. The definition of "ism" is "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement." Not being a theist is no more an "ism" than not being a stamp collector is an "ism".

Is stamp collecting an "ism"?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have no way of investigating what color shirt you are wearing. I do not believe you are not wearing a blue shirt because I don't and cant know. This is true agnosticism. If you have reasoning for not believing the shirt is blue, and atheists certainly claim to have reasoning for believing there are no gods, then you can be an a-bluist.

Ah, that explains your confusion. You don't seem to be aware that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[1137]

Ah, that explains your confusion. You don't seem to be aware that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.

Uh.... of course they aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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.

For me, the rhetoric game is about avoiding false equivalency with theists who use poor logic.

You can't prove that no gods exist logically. But never forget that logic has severe limitations too. Resting on pure logic for your knowledge is like saying that my purpose in life is 2+2 = 4.

If I AM a strong Atheist, it's that I think that a disembodied consciousness that is not physical, yet somehow creates or interacts physically, is a rather silly idea.

But I can't prove that it's not true. The claim poatulates a being outside the observable universe. . . But the only reason I avoid strong atheist positions in an argumentis because a Theist likes to go "Aha!" and suggest that lack of absolute proof of a non physical entity outside the universe means that the existence of that being is somehow just as likely as the nonexistence of that god.

It's avoiding a common flaw in less sophisticated apologetics logic, that's all . . . It gets boring to go over it again with every Peter, Paul, and Jesus I meet. Plus, they never seem to see the logical flaw anyway.

 

[Iti oj]

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 do believe the universe is godless and don't understand your question

 

[Iti oj]

To me there is no reason to consider the possibility of deity outside of the words of men.

 

[ArtieE]

If there is a lack of evidence both ways, or you believe you can't know either way, you are agnostic. This is not the same as atheism,

Of course it isn't. Atheism is the absence of belief agnosticism the absence of knowledge.

and you're clearly trying to make it seems like there is no agnostic theism.

Sure there is agnostic theism. Never said otherwise.

True neutrality would require no leaning either way. Atheists tend to clearly state that there is no evidence for gods that holds up, that if you investigate the evidence and reasoning it falls flat, and so they see no reason to accept or believe in gods.

Now you are confusing being an atheist with being a rationalist. You can be both but they are not the same.

I have no way of investigating what color shirt you are wearing. I do not believe you are not wearing a blue shirt because I don't and cant know. This is true agnosticism.

Agnosticism is not knowing atheism not believing.

If you have reasoning for not believing the shirt is blue, and atheists certainly claim to have reasoning for believing there are no gods,

Now you are talking about strong atheists who are also rationalists.

 

[ArtieE]

Is stamp collecting an "ism"?

Does it qualify as "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement."? Maybe as a "distinctive practice"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

So you are unwilling to say you believe cosmic unicorns do not exist? Really?

No. I do not have have that problem.

I do not believe that Cosmic Unicorns exist as equally strongly as I do not believe that gods exist. That should be a logical conclusion that you make about me, knowing that I'm an atheist from previous conversations.

The point of my post, however, was not about my "belief", as it has been readily established.

The point of the post was about probability or likeliness of a claim.
We should all agree, given the evidence for the subject and given the argument that you are making, that there is an equal probability for the existence of said Cosmic Unicorn as there is for god. The evidence for those two subjects is equatable. Thus, to argue for one is to also argue for the other. If we can all make that agreement, then I am happy with our collective understanding and see no further reason to debate this topic. If you have a problem with that equation, I would like to know what it is.

 

[McBell]

Does it qualify as "a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement."? Maybe as a "distinctive practice"?

I suppose it depends on just how far you push the "distinctive" part....

 

[1137]

No. I do not have have that problem.

I do not believe that Cosmic Unicorns exist as equally strongly as I do not believe that gods exist. That should be a logical conclusion that you make about me, knowing that I'm an atheist from previous conversations.

The point of my post, however, was not about my "belief", as it has been readily established.

The point of the post was about probability or likeliness of a claim.
We should all agree, given the evidence for the subject and given the argument that you are making, that there are equal probabilities for said Cosmic Unicorn as there is for god. The evidence for those two subjects is equatable. Thus, to argue for one is to also argue for the other. If we can all make that agreement, then I am happy with our collective understanding and see no further reason to debate this topic. If you have a problem with that equation, I would like to know what it is.

So you see no reason to believe X, think believing X is the incorrect position, but STILL won't say you believe Non-X?

 

[jonathan180iq]

So you see no reason to believe X, think believing X is the incorrect position, but STILL won't say you believe Non-X?

What do you think I just said?

"I do not believe that Cosmic Unicorns exist as equally strongly as I do not believe that gods exist."
-Me