What do Atheist Believe?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

To nitpick even what theism is, has some limited wriggle room. I mean I know of at least several humans, which are as theists no different in practice than any other left-wing modern Europeans.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

That sounds to me like someone trying to paint a symphony, then claiming that the limitations of painting refute all arguments for the existence of music.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

I distrust anyone who claims objective authority, especially about the nature of God, but I trust implicitly in the existence of the latter, so I guess it's perfectly possible to be one without the other

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That sounds to me like someone trying to paint a symphony, then claiming that the limitations of painting refute all arguments for the existence of music.

In the end, for all the negatives as wrong, false, irrational, illogical and all other variations I stopped listening to the objectivists among the atheists the moment I got that in effect they all make a category mistake of different versions of negatives and treat all as objective.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In the end, for all the negatives as wrong, false, irrational, illogical and all other variations I stopped listening to the objectivists among the atheists the moment I got that in effect they all make a category mistake of different versions of negatives and treat all as objective.

To make sense of the world, and to understand each other, we have to be prepared I think, to consider other paradigms than our own. Otherwise, we reject any way of being, or knowing, which doesn't fit our own limited template. There's a kind of wilful blindness, in saying "I have looked, but I have not seen that which I knew I wouldn't see anyway".

 

[sayak83]

In other words, Atheist simply do not accept the Scriptures as evidence of testimony of God while theist would. Not that they wouldn't accept any evidence, just the ones presented. Now I get that, which is kind of why I asked the question. Theist are able to create a grounded explanation for why things are and the genuinely adept ones are able to attach as many scientific truths to it in support. Atheists seem to hear the explanation and dismiss it as if there is a better or more logical alternative. Now I understand Atheists not being fans of political religious arguments where a Church historically would prohibit a natural scientific understanding of the world (theist were generally more affected by these prohibitions), but avoiding an explanation doesn't necessarily benefit truth. If atheists are still able to believe in something based on logic, and theism was born from making logical sense of this world, I personally don't see how atheism can operate cognitively. If it is simply disagreeing with others of who or what god is out there based on what make sense to you or the facts presented, that isn't atheism, that is just another form of theism. Right? I know tons of Christians that don't believe I believe in the same Jesus as they do because of evidences in the Bible, just because they don't call me Christian doesn't change what I feel is more logical to believe. From what I am hearing from a lot of proclaimed atheist is much of the same. It is that there is no way of disproving God, but there is a way to explain the universe outside of a book where people claimed to see God. Whether God exists or not, I'm going with the logically better explanation. I don't know how one could justify that being atheism?

I am not an atheist, but I think you are not sufficiently understanding the objections critically thinking atheists are making. I will give a try.
The world and all its phenomena exists. There will be a set of explanations (known or unknown) for all of this. The theists claim an entity called God is required to explain this. The atheists look at this claim and find it to be not justified given the evidence presented. So we should not modify our behaviour in the world assuming that this unjustified entity is truly existing.
Now you are concerned that atheists have no alternative explanation to offer in general. But that is not a problem if you think about it. It is entirely possible that we have not understood our world well enough to arrive at the correct explanation in this present moment. In that case we should desist from claiming such explanations and accept that we do not know yet and live our life based on what we do know and leave the rest to future generations.
I do not see why this would be an irrational approach to take.

 

[Heyo]

That sounds to me like someone trying to paint a symphony, then claiming that the limitations of painting refute all arguments for the existence of music.

... and then doing it anyway.

 

[Heyo]

To nitpick even what theism is, has some limited wriggle room. I mean I know of at least several humans, which are as theists no different in practice than any other left-wing modern Europeans.

And the difference between theists and deists - which some people simply can't see. For me deists (and pantheists) fall under the category "atheist", by definition.

 

[viole]

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 believe I heard that question already.

joking aside, one thing I believe in, even though there is no evidence, is that there is life on other planets. I also believe there is no Superman. No Apollo. No Mother Goose. And a plethora of things in that category.

ergo, I believe in a lot of things.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious George]

My question becomes a personal one. If you personally are an atheist and you believe in anything. Why do you believe in that thing? I am trying to understand if there is simply a picking and choosing what you believe and what you choose not to believe?

I believe in lots of things. For myriad reasons.

This can vary from simple things that cannot be proven—like the sun will rise tomorro—to more complex things like whether to mundane things like whether someone is hungry—to more complex things like the earths climate is changing. I believe in moral statements such as a we ought not needlessly deprive someone of liberty and philosophical things such as knowledge is true well justified belief.

I don’t think that it is just picking or choosing. In fact, I don’t believe we can choose our beliefs at all. While I do believe in free will, I don’t believe that beliefs are among the things we can will.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There's a kind of wilful blindness, in saying "I have looked, but I have not seen that which I knew I wouldn't see anyway".

IMHO, that exactly describes theists.

For me deists (and pantheists) fall under the category "atheist", by definition.

I differ with that definition of atheism.

I distrust anyone who claims objective authority, especially about the nature of God, but I trust implicitly in the existence of the latter, ..

I wonder why?

 

[Heyo]

I differ with that definition of atheism.

I understand that. It is really on the razors edge. If you translate "atheism" to "no gods" it is wrong. When you translate it to "no intervening gods" it is right. And a theos is, taken exactly, an intervening god, in contrast to a deos.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As to what atheists believe, there is a wide range. There is no atheistic dogma.

Ok, so atheist's believe there is no atheistic dogma. Now that seems like a dogmatic belief to me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

IMHO, that exactly describes theists.

I differ with that definition of atheism.

I wonder why?

Like all of us, my understanding of the world is based on my experience of it. I am no longer a child, who believes as his parents told him to believe. My parents did teach me many things of great value, but I have had 62 years to figure things out for myself.

Experience has taught me that one need only open one’s mind and one’s heart, to discover that the spirit of God is everywhere, and in everything. Most especially, God is in every one of us, even in you; atheists, and materialists, have mistaken the illusion (Maya, if you like) for the Great Reality. Why this should be, I do not know, but it seems to me the atheist is a man or woman who has consciously chosen to deny the sunlight, while keeping drawn the blinds of his house.

 

[Ella S.]

Like all of us, my understanding of the world is based on my experience of it. I am no longer a child, who believes as his parents told him to believe. My parents did teach me many things of great value, but I have had 62 years to figure things out for myself.

Experience has taught me that one need only open one’s mind and one’s heart, to discover that the spirit of God is everywhere, and in everything. Most especially, God is in every one of us, even in you; atheists, and materialists, have mistaken the illusion (Maya, if you like) for the Great Reality. Why this should be, I do not know, but it seems to me the atheist is a man or woman who has consciously chosen to deny the sunlight, while keeping drawn the blinds of his house.

I promise you that I am not consciously choosing to "deny the sunlight." I genuinely do not see it, and every attempt theists have made to show me it just comes across as irrational or baseless. I'm still waiting for one to demonstrate the existence or truth of what they're talking about, but it has yet to happen.

At this point, I'm starting to give up the search. I imagine if there really was good, demonstrable evidence for theism or the "Great Reality," it would have come up in a conversation by now. It hasn't. I just get nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I promise you that I am not consciously choosing to "deny the sunlight." I genuinely do not see it, and every attempt theists have made to show me it just comes across as irrational or baseless. I'm still waiting for one to demonstrate the existence or truth of what they're talking about, but it has yet to happen.

At this point, I'm starting to give up the search. I imagine if there really was good, demonstrable evidence for theism or the "Great Reality," it would have come up in a conversation by now. It hasn't. I just get nonsense.

I will try. Forget God. Forget all metaphysics and ontology. God and it is not even God is in the absurd existential condition of being a human beyond true and false in the standard Western dichotomy of e.g. I am right and you are wrong or in reverse.
It is in the end psychology as for how we humans cope for a cognition that can understand there must be a truth but can't find it.

 

[Ella S.]

I will try. Forget God. Forget all metaphysics and ontology. God and it is not even God is in the absurd existential condition of being a human beyond true and false in the standard Western dichotomy of e.g. I am right and you are wrong or in reverse.
It is in the end psychology as for how we humans cope for a cognition that can understand there must be a truth but can't find it.

So then God is a construct of bias? I'm not sure that's a very convincing argument.

If we're talking about whether such a being exists, it's going to involve metaphysics, ontology, or physics, because these are the fields that examine existence. If we get rid of the idea of existence entirely, then we also necessarily dismiss the idea that God exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So then God is a construct of bias? I'm not sure that's a very convincing argument.

If we're talking about whether such a being exists, it's going to involve metaphysics, ontology, or physics, because these are the fields that examine existence. If we get rid of the idea of existence entirely, then we also necessarily dismiss the idea that God exists.

No, it is one way to claim knowledge of "Das Ding an sich" beyound merely being the objective abstract in the mind.
But that is not unique to God.
Get this: I don't do any in effect positive metaphysics and ontology including physics, non-physics or something else than physics.

God is not a unique "bias", because there are other ones than God.
Rather they are all constructs of brains that answer with claims of knowledge, where I claim with the construct of no knowledge.
It is not even that I am right and they are wrong. It is that we just do it differently.

So I do epistemology and you do a different one, because you assume yours for " it's going to involve metaphysics, ontology, or physics, because these are the fields that examine existence."
Examine is the key word and that involves epistemology.
So if you really one to put a negative on me. I am a solipsist, but not a metaphysical one. I am a variant of the epistemological one. So to me to claim knowledge beyond the human mind or any other variant to that effect, is to me a contradiction in effect. I know something I can't know.

 

[Ella S.]

No, it is one way to claim knowledge of "Das Ding an sich" beyound merely being the objective abstract in the mind.
But that is not unique to God.
Get this: I don't do any in effect positive metaphysics and ontology including physics, non-physics or something else than physics.

God is not a unique "bias", because there are other ones than God.
Rather they are all constructs of brains that answer with claims of knowledge, where I claim with the construct of no knowledge.
It is not even that I am right and they are wrong. It is that we just do it differently.

So I do epistemology and you do a different one, because you assume yours for " it's going to involve metaphysics, ontology, or physics, because these are the fields that examine existence."
Examine is the key word and that involves epistemology.
So if you really one to put a negative on me. I am a solipsist, but not a metaphysical one. I am a variant of the epistemological one. So to me to claim knowledge beyond the human mind or any other variant to that effect, is to me a contradiction in effect. I know something I can't know.

Arguing for the non-existence of everything is not the same as arguing for the existence of God.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

So your whole identity as a human being is to be an atheist? You have no beliefs in anything even outside of deities?

I don’t actually think most atheists include their atheism in their self-identity. That would be a bit like you including a lack of belief in, say, unicorns, in your self-identity:

“Hello, my name is X and I don’t believe in unicorns.” Is not something I’d expect to hear from someone introducing themselves.

Humbly,
Hermit