What do Atheist Believe?

[lewisnotmiller]

I have mixed experiences. But as for the Internet this site is better than any limited worldview groups, because it is diverse.

Yup. I was explicitly looking for sites that were open to atheists, but not atheist sites when I found RF.

 

[Viker]

I don't know exactly all of what atheists believe. I do know what they do not believe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aren't we all supposed to hate each other?

Second Commandment. Abrahamic God made it very clear right in the beginning. No love lost.

 

[Heyo]

You are correct here. As a Hindu atheist, I strongly subscribe to the concept of 'dharma' (duties) though I do not believe in God, soul, and ideas that relate to them. Many of the Buddhists and Jains also will say so.

:informative:

 

[Heyo]

You see, when I was an atheist I never went around publicising it. In fact I only mentioned it when asked.

I'm interested in conversion stories of former atheists. It would be off topic here but if you'd like to share the thread Were You an Atheist™ before You became a Theist? is still open.
I have a hypothesis that it is impossible to go from informed atheism to theism by rational means. I haven't found a counter example, yet.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm interested in conversion stories of former atheists. It would be off topic here but if you'd like to share the thread Were You an Atheist™ before You became a Theist? is still open.
I have a hypothesis that it is impossible to go from informed atheism to theism by rational means. I haven't found a counter example, yet.

I won't fit, because I went from atheist to deist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are Atheists apolitical, since politics panders to emotions, more than it does to reason; political agnostic.

In an of itself, atheism has very little (if any) impact at all on the worldview of the atheist.

You have to remember, the label "atheism", unlike most other labels, doesn't actually describe positive attributes or beliefs of the atheist.
Instead, it rather addresses beliefs the person does NOT hold: beliefs in theistic gods / supernatural things etc.

When I tell you that I don't believe in any gods... Then you don't know anything about me. You don't know what I DO believe. You don't know what my political aspirations or preferences are at all. You only know that, whatever they are, they won't be theistically motivated.

The abortion issue is not a rational issue but closer to a religion. Since emotion is so high, it cannot be fully addressed by science to settle this. The panic that showed up when abortion was limited, was not rational.

In terms of faith, faith is the belief in things not seen. How many Atheists thought the Russian Collusion Coup in the USA was real and not just a fairly tale, as it turned out to be? Did reason and science help the atheists get it right, as a whole? It appears that faith, in a fairy tale, can affect even the Atheists. There are other forms of religions that are not defined as such. They makeup fairly tales like Russian Collusion.

Faith is an important part of all innovation. All new ideas are first felt with intuition; emotion and reason, often years before they become part of reality; become available to the sensory systems of those who have to see to believe. The iPhone was in the imagination of Steve Job and Apple developers for years, via faith, before the first production models. Faith often reflects the best in humans, often when those who can only see with their eyes, cannot yet see, and try to destroy; fear of novelty.

How did so many religious people do better, with the Russian Collusion fairy tale, then did many of the Atheists? Why did the Atheists have so much faith in this scam without any real proof? Was that due to a religious faith affect, that they did not see or did not want to see?

We need to redefine religion so it includes fairy tales religions, like the Collusion delusion. Atheism appear to wait and see what classic Religion does, and then do the opposite. This may involving picking fringe religion fairly tales, sold with politics and science if they conflict with classic religion. Not all ideas in science pan out. Many stop at faith; perpetual motion machines.

My approach to religion and science is practical. The ancient people had the wisdom of human nature. I attempt to translate what they knew in terms of modem understanding and science. For example, the science dating of civilization and written language coincide with the 6000 year timing of Genesis. This is not a coincidence.

Humans change away from being herders, wanderers and gatherers, to more like squatters and farmers. This drastic change of human behavior away from a million years of evolution; wandering, suggests a major update in the brain's operating system, away from the natural instincts of a million years of wandering. What appears, suddenly, was a new type of human with new behaviors; more will and choice apart from instinct. Religions deals with this new type of human. Many have ancient books that were around to see and gather data, from those times. Mythology tells us things about the layout of the brain firmware.

I could never understand why Atheists could not see the value in this transitional data, but feel a strong need to suppress it. I suppose this makes it easier to become unnatural, since of there is divide in their minds, by those very people who saw the update, and recorded the changing of the times. Unnatural; social constructs, also explains their drift, Left and their dual standards for faith in fringe religions, not sold as religion, to escape the same oversight.

The above is a prime example of trying to tie things to atheism which in reality have nothing to do with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists pursuing their religion with great zeal and enthusiasm like joining religious forums, some have many usernames. There are militant atheists as well, all over place, they’re very religious.

To say that atheists follow a religion, is to not understand what atheism actually is.

 

[Apostle John]

I'm interested in conversion stories of former atheists. It would be off topic here but if you'd like to share the thread Were You an Atheist™ before You became a Theist? is still open.
I have a hypothesis that it is impossible to go from informed atheism to theism by rational means. I haven't found a counter example, yet.

I have never been a trade mark atheist as you have entitled your thread. I read your op description and have never defended the argument of an atheist. I have, however, gone from atheist to believer within a minute, from nought to ten on the decimal scale of believing, by rational means. I now don’t see how an atheist has any argument to defend.

 

[Heyo]

I have never been a trade mark atheist as you have entitled your thread. I read your op description and have never defended the argument of an atheist. I have, however, gone from atheist to believer within a minute, from nought to ten on the decimal scale of believing, by rational means. I now don’t see how an atheist has any argument to defend.

So you were basically a "baby atheists". We all were that.

 

[Ella S.]

Are Atheists apolitical, since politics panders to emotions, more than it does to reason; political agnostic. The abortion issue is not a rational issue but closer to a religion. Since emotion is so high, it cannot be fully addressed by science to settle this. The panic that showed up when abortion was limited, was not rational.

In terms of faith, faith is the belief in things not seen. How many Atheists thought the Russian Collusion Coup in the USA was real and not just a fairly tale, as it turned out to be? Did reason and science help the atheists get it right, as a whole? It appears that faith, in a fairy tale, can affect even the Atheists. There are other forms of religions that are not defined as such. They makeup fairly tales like Russian Collusion.

Faith is an important part of all innovation. All new ideas are first felt with intuition; emotion and reason, often years before they become part of reality; become available to the sensory systems of those who have to see to believe. The iPhone was in the imagination of Steve Job and Apple developers for years, via faith, before the first production models. Faith often reflects the best in humans, often when those who can only see with their eyes, cannot yet see, and try to destroy; fear of novelty.

How did so many religious people do better, with the Russian Collusion fairy tale, then did many of the Atheists? Why did the Atheists have so much faith in this scam without any real proof? Was that due to a religious faith affect, that they did not see or did not want to see?

We need to redefine religion so it includes fairy tales religions, like the Collusion delusion. Atheism appear to wait and see what classic Religion does, and then do the opposite. This may involving picking fringe religion fairly tales, sold with politics and science if they conflict with classic religion. Not all ideas in science pan out. Many stop at faith; perpetual motion machines.

My approach to religion and science is practical. The ancient people had the wisdom of human nature. I attempt to translate what they knew in terms of modem understanding and science. For example, the science dating of civilization and written language coincide with the 6000 year timing of Genesis. This is not a coincidence.

Humans change away from being herders, wanderers and gatherers, to more like squatters and farmers. This drastic change of human behavior away from a million years of evolution; wandering, suggests a major update in the brain's operating system, away from the natural instincts of a million years of wandering. What appears, suddenly, was a new type of human with new behaviors; more will and choice apart from instinct. Religions deals with this new type of human. Many have ancient books that were around to see and gather data, from those times. Mythology tells us things about the layout of the brain firmware.

I could never understand why Atheists could not see the value in this transitional data, but feel a strong need to suppress it. I suppose this makes it easier to become unnatural, since of there is divide in their minds, by those very people who saw the update, and recorded the changing of the times. Unnatural; social constructs, also explains their drift, Left and their dual standards for faith in fringe religions, not sold as religion, to escape the same oversight.

It's not about suppressing religious wisdom. Religion gave us the natural philosophers. We've merely built on top of what religion has given us and have a better understanding of the world now in light of our new data. We let go of humourism, of heliocentrism, of young-earth creationism, and now of old-earth creationism and theistic evolution (and with them, God.)

We've been resisting ethnocentrism and eurocentrism in anthropology, and with it the notion that Christianity is the end-all be-all of religion, because we're realizing that its foundations are not really that different from all of the other "false" religions. If Christianity has no better leg to stand on than false religions, then it becomes clear that it's a false religion itself.

We never could have come to an understanding of these facts if it wasn't for religious thinkers pushing to understand the world around us. We understand that world a bit better now, and we're still gaining a better understanding as we gain more data and run more experiments, becoming more accurate and precise in our predictions and knowledge.

The difference between the atheist and what you're doing is that you're clinging to an older model that's been outdated for centuries.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not about suppressing religious wisdom. Religion gave us the natural philosophers. We've merely built on top of what religion has given us and have a better understanding of the world now in light of our new data. We let go of humourism, of heliocentrism, of young-earth creationism, and now of old-earth creationism and theistic evolution (and with them, God.)

We've been resisting ethnocentrism and eurocentrism in anthropology, and with it the notion that Christianity is the end-all be-all of religion, because we're realizing that its foundations are not really that different from all of the other "false" religions. If Christianity has no better leg to stand on than false religions, then it becomes clear that it's a false religion itself.

We never could have come to an understanding of these facts if it wasn't for religious thinkers pushing to understand the world around us. We understand that world a bit better now, and we're still gaining a better understanding as we gain more data and run more experiments, becoming more accurate and precise in our predictions and knowledge.

The difference between the atheist and what you're doing is that you're clinging to an older model that's been outdated for centuries.

The problem is that the text about the bold one has nothing to do with atheism as such. And atheist is not a model, it is the lack of belief in gods. That is all.

 

[Stevicus]

It seems to me that Atheists are most concerned with proof. Not only that they typically want it handed to them on a silver platter served by an angel from heaven. I mean don't get me wrong, all of us would probably love for that to happen, but what I am curious to know is: Is there anything that Atheist believe in? I mean, does an atheist live life expecting everything to be explainable.... factual.... proven? Is there anything, metaphysical or physical, that they actually believe in or do they just rely on their concrete proof and knowledge? If they do believe in something... anything? Why? I'm curious.

I'm an agnostic, which many associate with what is called "soft atheism," but to me, it's not so much about "belief" as much as it's about "knowledge." If you claim to know that God exists, then my first question would be "How do you know?" Because knowledge is a definite thing - either you know or you don't. Belief is more in the realm of hope and expectation, not hard knowledge.

So, if we can agree that belief is no more than hope, then I would say there are plenty of things I might hope are true. Yet I don't know it to be true, nor can I prove it to be true.

To me, when someone says "I believe in God," then it's the same thing as someone saying "I believe the Cubs are going to win the World Series this year." They don't know it to be true; they just hope it's true.

 

[Ella S.]

The problem is that the text about the bold one has nothing to do with atheism as such. And atheist is not a model, it is the lack of belief in gods. That is all.

Atheism, philosophically, is the model that the universe was not created by an omnimax, immanent, and transcendent agency. I would say that such a belief has demonstrated itself to be most likely, given our research on the early universe. There are many models of the universe that are more likely, and such an agency is arguably nomologically (if not metaphysically) impossible, making it necessarily false.

I understand some people use "atheism" to refer to a lack of belief in gods. I think the proper word for that is non-theism, not atheism. The person I was replying to clearly meant "atheism" in the sense of what some people call "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism." As a gnostic atheist myself, I thought it was appropriate for me to argue from that position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism, philosophically, is the model that the universe was not created by an omnimax, immanent, and transcendent agency. I would say that such a belief has demonstrated itself to be most likely, given our research on the early universe. There are many models of the universe that are more likely, and such an agency is arguably nomologically (if not metaphysically) impossible, making it necessarily false.

I understand some people use "atheism" to refer to a lack of belief in gods. I think the proper word for that is non-theism, not atheism. The person I was replying to clearly meant "atheism" in the sense of what some people call "strong atheism" or "gnostic atheism." As a gnostic atheist myself, I thought it was appropriate for me to argue from that position.

Yes, and as a strong skeptic, who avoids all metaphysics I do it differently.
In essence I don't do realism or anti-realism. I am indifferent to both, since I do a kind of neutral phenomenology. But because I am from a Western culture, I slip into metaphysics as a "bad" habit.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes, and as a strong skeptic, who avoids all metaphysics I do it differently.
In essence I don't do realism or anti-realism. I am indifferent to both, since I do a kind of neutral phenomenology. But because I am from a Western culture, I slip into metaphysics as a "bad" habit.

I respect your skepticism, even if I find it annoying sometimes.

It's important to question and doubt everything that we think is true. In fact, I would even agree that objective truth is impossible to know, because "truth" is a product of a logical process that can only deal with the data that a subjective agent has available to them.

I still think that "truth" can be obtained through the process of logic, even if it is subjective, and that's why I'm a rationalist. As a rationalist, I do engage in analytical philosophy, which includes metaphysics. I am a metaphysical naturalist, and that's a large part of why I'm also a "strong" atheist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I respect your skepticism, even if I find it annoying sometimes.

It's important to question and doubt everything that we think is true. In fact, I would even agree that objective truth is impossible to know, because "truth" is a product of a logical process that can only deal with the data that a subjective agent has available to them.

I still think that "truth" can be obtained through the process of logic, even if it is subjective, and that's why I'm a rationalist. As a rationalist, I do engage in analytical philosophy, which includes metaphysics. I am a metaphysical naturalist, and that's a large part of why I'm also a "strong" atheist.

Yeah, I get you.
In a sense we are properly not that different and I guess we can agree on this one in some sense:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

In a sense we both get the limitations of truth, but we in effect agree on that, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
We just are with some variation both of nurture and nature.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm interested in conversion stories of former atheists. It would be off topic here but if you'd like to share the thread Were You an Atheist™ before You became a Theist? is still open.
I have a hypothesis that it is impossible to go from informed atheism to theism by rational means. I haven't found a counter example, yet.

What is informed atheism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is informed atheism?

That is really not relevant. The question in the end is if it is possible to be a theist without claiming objective authority?
But that is my bias and I know it, even as a skeptic.

 

[Heyo]

What is informed atheism?

More than just not believing but knowing why. An "informed" atheist has studied reasons for and against theism and decided that the pro arguments are lacking.
If you don't know and can't argue against Pascals Wager, the Kalam and Aquinas 5 Proofs, you are not an informed atheist.