Trying To Understand Atheism

[McBell]

Damn us for using dictionary definitions and logic, people should be able to make up their own words!

I really wish people would make up new words instead of going all Humpty Dumpty on the current words.

 

[Willamena]

LOL and here we can see what happens when a person just quotes a paragraph instead of actually understanding the concepts. Here is a simple list for you.

Theism: Belief in the existence of one or more gods.
Atheism: Absence of the above belief.

Theism: Belief in the existence of god(s).
Weak atheism: Absence of belief in the existence of gods, absence of belief that gods don't exist.
Strong atheism: Absence of belief in the existence of gods, presence of belief that gods don't exist.

Gnostic theist: Knows god(s) exist.
Gnostic atheist: Knows gods don't exist.
Agnostic theist: Believes but doesn't know god(s) exist.
Agnostic atheist: Doesn't know and doesn't believe gods exist.

Theism/atheism is about belief, gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge. Some people just can't tell the difference.

Few actually agree with the use of "gnostic" that way.

 

[Augustus]

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.

It's standard practice to believe that something non-existent doesn't exist though.

 

[Augustus]

Few actually agree with the use of "gnostic" that way.

It's such a soul-piercingly bad addition to the English language that I tend to assume it must have been coined by the same person who thought it a good idea to call Rationalist atheists 'Brights'.

 

[SkepticX]

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.

Do you see
- There's no reason to believe any extraterrestrials exist.
or
- There's no reason to believe any particular/given extraterrestrials exist.
and
- Extraterrestrials do not exist.
as logically identical claims?

People who have trouble with this distinction tend to have trouble with uncertainty in general, as if you must form a conclusion whether or not one is warranted (often, you must form this conclusion on a binary basis), which violates one of the most fundamental tenets of sound logic--that one should reserve any conclusions until/unless any are strongly enough indicated (this is why science and critical thinking are about probabilities rather than certainty).

I do agree, though, that believers nearly always dramatically shift their standards for belief between theism, non-religious notions, and atheism, taking the feeblest of justification as sufficient to validate theism, a more appropriate level of justification as sufficient to validate non-religious claims, but suddenly become quite radical skeptics (extreme cynics, really) when it comes to atheism. You notice this shift, but you don't seem to appreciate much of its depth at all.

 

[1137]

Do you see
- There's no reason to believe any extraterrestrials exist.
or
- There's no reason to believe any particular/given extraterrestrials exist.
and
- Extraterrestrials do not exist.
as logically identical claims?

People who have trouble with this distinction tend to have trouble with uncertainty in general, as if you must form a conclusion whether or not one is warranted (often, you must form this conclusion on a binary basis), which violates one of the most fundamental tenets of sound logic--that one should reserve any conclusions until/unless any are strongly enough indicated (this is why science and critical thinking are about probabilities rather than certainty).

I do agree, though, that believers nearly always dramatically shift their standards for belief between theism, non-religious notions, and atheism, taking the feeblest of justification as sufficient to validate theism, a more appropriate level of justification as sufficient to validate non-religious claims, but suddenly become quite radical skeptics (extreme cynics, really) when it comes to atheism. You notice this shift, but you don't seem to appreciate much of its depth at all.

It should be pretty clear by now why this is a straw man.

 

[SkepticX]

It should be pretty clear by now why this is a straw man.

Declarations do not constitute arguments.

 

[SkepticX]

But you don't need proof for belief, only for knowledge.

What does "believe" really mean if you "believe" something is true in spite of the lack of a sound basis in knowledge? In this context "belief" is really just a more palatable term for "presumption".

 

[1137]

Declarations do not constitute arguments.

Sorry, the straw man has been pointed out each of the thousand times it was made in this thread. I'm bored with it, take it elsewhere.

 

[1137]

What does "believe" really mean if you "believe" something is true in spite of the lack of a sound basis in knowledge? In this context "belief" is really just a more palatable term for "presumption".

Cool another straw man.

 

[SkepticX]

Sorry, the straw man has been pointed out each of the thousand times it was made in this thread. I'm bored with it, take it elsewhere.

No problem.

It's clear you're at least right that there's no point.

 

[1137]

No problem.

It's clear you're at least right that there's no point.

Of course there's no point to addressing straw men. If you wish to address the OP I encourage and look forward to it.

 

[McBell]

Of course there's no point to addressing straw men. If you wish to address the OP I encourage and look forward to it.

Yet you ignored mine...

Interesting

 

[SkepticX]

Of course there's no point to addressing straw men. If you wish to address the OP I encourage and look forward to it.

Declaring a straw man does not a straw man make, but I'm big on giving the benefit of doubt.

So if you won't say why you think one of the points in my initial response to the OP is a straw man, how about at least telling me which point in my initial reply to the OP are you saying is a straw man?

 

[Marsh]

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.

First, I personally do not hold that gods are only unlikely, but rather that they are impossible (I am a 7 on Dawkins' scale). I am, like yourself, a bit perplexed. I am an atheist who has never heard another atheist make the claim that the universe is not godless. Is it your view that most atheists hold this position? If so, I propose that you are perhaps a bit misguided in what you believe about atheists. I suspect most atheists hold the view that gods simply do no exist, though some, I think, try to appear open minded and might allow -- for the sake of argument -- a very slim chance in the existence of deity. The reasoning is that lack of evidence for God does not comprise evidence against God. Yet, most intelligent people acknowledge that lack of evidence for an Easter Bunny should not be construed to mean that we should keep the door open -- just in case.

 

[ArtieE]

I suspect most atheists hold the view that gods simply do no exist

Strong atheists actively believe gods don't exist. They are a subset of all atheists. The majority of atheists are weak atheists. People who are simply not theists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Strong atheists actively believe gods don't exist. They are a subset of all atheists. The majority of atheists are weak atheists. People who are simply not theists.

I would classify myself as a weak/agnostic atheist. I don't think Gods exist, I just think;
1) It's impossible to KNOW
2) 'Gods' is a word with a variety of meanings

So, rather, I simply say I'm without theism. It's more accurate. But in simple terms, I don't believe there are any Gods.

 

[Willamena]

Do you see
- There's no reason to believe any extraterrestrials exist.
or
- There's no reason to believe any particular/given extraterrestrials exist.
and
- Extraterrestrials do not exist.
as logically identical claims?

and
- I don't believe extraterrestrials exist.
...which is the topic of the thread.

If I say I don't believe Santa Claus exists, it means I think there isn't a Santa Claus. It doesn't leave any room for doubt about the possibility of a gnome lord living in a factory at the North Pole making presents for the world's children.

People who have trouble with this distinction tend to have trouble with uncertainty in general, as if you must form a conclusion whether or not one is warranted (often, you must form this conclusion on a binary basis), which violates one of the most fundamental tenets of sound logic--that one should reserve any conclusions until/unless any are strongly enough indicated (this is why science and critical thinking are about probabilities rather than certainty).

If there's no evidence that there's an invisible elephant sitting next to me in the living room watching Netflix, then it's within the realm of logic and rational belief that I believe there is none. The evidence of the senses is strong enough indication.

 

[Willamena]

Strong atheists actively believe gods don't exist. They are a subset of all atheists. The majority of atheists are weak atheists. People who are simply not theists.

We've had this discussion before, Artie. "Gods do not exist" is not a subset of "Gods may or may not exist."

 

[ArtieE]

We've had this discussion before, Artie. "Gods do not exist" is not a subset of "Gods may or may not exist."

The set is "people who don't believe in the existence of gods" and the subset is "people who don't believe in the existence of gods plus actively believe that gods don't exist".