Trying To Understand Atheism

[crossfire]

Faith, and skepticism are dual opposites. There is a burden of proof to atheist as much as there is to believers.

Actually, skepticism can be applied to not only faith, but also to belief and also to knowledge. One can also have faith in the process of skepticism. This demonstrates that faith and skepticism are not polar opposites.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Its a common misunderstanding when one can only think in the form of reference one was raised.

Most atheists do not BELIEVE that there is no god. They simply do not see evidence of a god. If there is no evidence of a god why would one accept the proposition? The proving a negative is a terrible journey to try and go down in logic or philosphy.

 

[crossfire]

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.

OK, this might be helpful to you. There are different ways of approaching a question:

• There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].
• There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
• There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
• There are questions that should be put aside. (Mu)

Any deity that transcends our ordinary reality that we can grasp obviously can't be squeezed into the first (categorical) approach. A different approach would then be in order.

 

[LuisDantas]

Faith, and skepticism are dual opposites.

Again, that is only true to some (IMO lesser) undertandings of what "faith" means.

There is a burden of proof to atheist as much as there is to believers.

Why would you think so? Atheism is sort of the "cautious" position. It has no duty to justify itself.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

are you out there in the world thinking there are gods, or are no gods? There's really no middle answer.

<Insert whole debate about whether people who haven't heard of the idea of gods/babies yet to be exposed to the concept of gods are atheists because they're out there in the world not believing gods exist, or whether there is in fact a middle answer where being unaware/unsure of gods is neither thinking there are or are not gods.> Agnostics (without atheism or theism attached) get really prickly when you try and tell them they have to choose a side, that you cannot default to 'I'm not sure'.

Some atheists do too, but I'm not one of them. I'm an agnostic atheist but I am comfortable saying I do not believe there are gods or I believe there are no gods but I do not claim certain knowledge.

Ok, what if the theist says they believe god exists?

Good for them? If they think they have some verifiable reason I should also believe in a god or gods then I'd ask for that reason. Otherwise, I'm pretty content to say 'I'm not convinced a god or gods exist' or 'I see no reason to assume a god or gods are necessary for the universe and life to exist.'

 

[1137]

Nonsense, that is a gnostic atheist.Nonsense again a strong atheist believes there are no gods.Nonsense again, a person who doesn't know with certainty is an agnostic.

Seriously, read some beginners guide online about atheism and agnosticism.

You don't even seem to comprehend the divide between knowledge and belief.

 

[McBell]

Faith, and skepticism are dual opposites.

They can be, yes.
Not always though.

There is a burden of proof to atheist as much as there is to believers.

there can be.
Depends upon the atheist.

 

[1137]

<Insert whole debate about whether people who haven't heard of the idea of gods/babies yet to be exposed to the concept of gods are atheists because they're out there in the world not believing gods exist, or whether there is in fact a middle answer where being unaware/unsure of gods is neither thinking there are or are not gods.> Agnostics (without atheism or theism attached) get really prickly when you try and tell them they have to choose a side, that you cannot default to 'I'm not sure'.

Some atheists do too, but I'm not one of them. I'm an agnostic atheist but I am comfortable saying I do not believe there are gods or I believe there are no gods but I do not claim certain knowledge.

Then the op is not directed at your type of atheism. Guys seriously, you don't have to debate threads you agree with or comment on absolutely everything.

 

[ArtieE]

You don't even seem to comprehend the divide between knowledge and belief.

LOL read a beginners guide online about atheism and agnosticism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then the op is not directed at your type of atheism. Guys seriously, you don't have to debate threads you agree with or comment on absolutely everything.

Where's the fun in that?

I agree that an atheist has no belief in god. I also see no need to change:
I believe there is no god = I do not believe there is a god = I do not have a belief in god (excepting maybe implicit atheists who don't have a belief in god but maybe can't also say 'I believe there is no god')
Except maybe that the former can be easily confused with 'I am certain there is no god' which is a question of knowledge not belief.
Granted, an atheist can be explicit about different god beliefs too. I am certain the Abrahamic god does not exist as described by the bible. I am less certain about other types of gods. So the ignostic in all of us should reply to 'do you believe in god?' with 'what kind of god?'

 

[1137]

LOL read a beginners guide online about atheism and agnosticism.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
   synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion,skepticism, doubt, agnosticism;
   nihilism
   "atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
   synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,cynic; More

 

[Revoltingest]

Faith, and skepticism are dual opposites. There is a burden of proof to atheist as much as there is to believers.

For the weak atheist, there is no burden of proof at all, ie,
my disbelief is founded upon no proof for or against gods.

 

[ArtieE]

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
   synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion,skepticism, doubt, agnosticism;
   nihilism
   "atheism was not freely discussed in his community"

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
   synonyms: skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas,cynic; More

Here is a simple beginners guide to understanding the difference between atheists and agnostics. http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/Atheist-vs-Agnostic-Difference.htm There's no point in just quoting definitions if you don't understand the concepts.

 

[rrosskopf]

It seems as though an Atheist is someone who has taken a stand against the belief in God - a leap of faith in its own right - as opposed to someone who simply acknowledges no personal experience with the supernatural. The difference is one is open to learning that there is in fact a God, while the other practices a kind of blindness, where they refuse to consider the possibility.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems as though an Atheist is someone who has taken a stand against the belief in God - a leap of faith in its own right - as opposed to someone who simply acknowledges no personal experience with the supernatural.

Sorry, that is inaccurate. Those may be the most visible, but you are being too restrictive.

The difference is one is open to learning that there is in fact a God, while the other practices a kind of blindness, where they refuse to consider the possibility.

This is even more wrong.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Believing there are none is not the same as saying none exist. They are telling you that it is reasonable to assume something does not exist until there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that it does. Otherwise you are left in the position of believing that virtually every claim made must be true.

If I told you that green pixies created the universe, would you believe me or not accept the claim untill I was able to provide sufficiently convincing evidence of the claim.

Also, it would be erroneous for me to expect you to prove my claim is untrue, as it is an unfalsifiable claim. Likewise for a supernatural god.

 

[ArtieE]

It seems as though an Atheist is someone who has taken a stand against the belief in God - a leap of faith in its own right -

That's a strong atheist.

as opposed to someone who simply acknowledges no personal experience with the supernatural.

That's a weak atheist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

[Milton Platt]

It seems as though an Atheist is someone who has taken a stand against the belief in God - a leap of faith in its own right - as opposed to someone who simply acknowledges no personal experience with the supernatural. The difference is one is open to learning that there is in fact a God, while the other practices a kind of blindness, where they refuse to consider the possibility.

You are incorrect. It requires no faith to reject a claim because the evidence is not there to support the claim.

Atheism, at it's basic level is not a claim, but a rejection of a claim. Not believing is the nul position.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Atheists can only examine what other people say their god is like. One who does not believe in the existence of the god cannot have an opinion as to what the non-existent god would look like.

 

[Milton Platt]

As I've said, I consider this an impossibility on any issue (not just gods). Your view is the Cartesian one where acceptance is a subsequent act to comprehension; mine is the Spinozan one where they are inseparable.

imo, most atheists don't defer pending further evidence, they reject pending further evidence.

That's why I think it is a grammatical difference rather than a cognitive one.

One cannot reject or accept pending evidence because it isn't yet evidence.