What do Atheist Believe?

[Heyo]

Can not believing something or not knowing something, really be described as philosophies?

No, not if you describe it that way. Not knowing is the essence of Agnosticism but it is also the conviction that nobody else knows and that making things up instead of accepting one's ignorance is not a god thing.
Also note that Agnostics don't know about the existence or nature of gods.

 

[Audie]

Trust me on this,i am pretty much left wing liberal (with some oddities) and atheist

I'm more the Grnghis Khan type of liberal

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What do Atheist Believe?​

That's easy, atheists believe that theists are wrong.

You're conflating atheist with critical thinker, which is understandable given that critical analysis of the evidence for and against god claims leads to agnostic atheism. Critical thinkers recognize that belief by faith - unjustified belief - is a logical error to be avoided.

I used to be an atheist. In retrospect I can see I believed in the unbelievable. Not wishing to light the blue touch paper for other atheists to start ranting but as an atheist I personally would babble endlessly to Christians in my family and anyone that tried to evangelise me that science had all the answers. Thankfully I’m an awakened born again Christian

If you babbled about atheism and science then, you likely babbling about gods and religion now. Being a babbler isn't related to belief.

It seems to me that Atheists are most concerned with proof.

You're in the same boat with the poster above. Critical thinkers are concerned with whether claims are supported by sound arguments, since that is their currency of belief.

does an atheist live life expecting everything to be explainable.... factual.... proven?

No, but a critical thinker, who will also be an empiricist, lives life according to what he does know, knowledge being the collection of demonstrably correct ideas - ideas that can be used to predict outcomes - one holds.

So your whole identity as a human being is to be an atheist?

That's very little of my identity, which is based more in who I am, how I feel about that person, what I have become and done and how I feel about that, how I decide what is true about the world, and what I believe - not what I don't believe.

I am actually wanting to get some ideas because I am interested to know if atheism is an experience of a general lack of belief.

Atheism isn't an experience. It's exactly analogous to avampirism and aleprechaunism, which are also expressions of unbelief due to insufficient evidence to justify belief, also not experiences, also nothing that would define a person, also agnostic positions meaning that the existence of vampires and leprechauns can neither be ruled in nor out and that therefore neither should be believed to exist.

I understand there is atheism and there is agnosticism. Agnosticism is what everyone experiences to certain degress, however, I am curious to know if atheism is possible in humans, and if so, how does it affect ones belief structure.

I am an agnostic atheist, the commonest kind.

So you are content with your proof in your belief system coming from stories or happening to other things or beings?

If he's a critical thinker, he is vigilant to ensure that none of his beliefs are arrived at that way. The faithful believe such stories.

It is hard because from my understanding Atheism is entirely weighted on rejecting claims made by people's beliefs, typically supported by an idea that there is no physical proof therefore impossible or unreasonable to believe in deities. What I am trying to see is if that same scrutiny is placed in all belief systems outside of deites?

Yes, it is. But please learn to say critical thinker rather than atheist. Astrologers can be atheists, but most atheists reject astrology, because most are critical thinkers, not because they're atheists.

What specific expectations are you looking for? Visitation? Miraculous unexplainable occurrences?

I'm not expecting anything from gods, nor from theists. I understand that no evidence that makes gods necessary or even more likely will ever be adduced in my lifetime, and expect that to be the case forever.

Why doesn't the Earth and its vast variety of species and intricacies meet your expectations, where it would most non-atheists?

Because the naturalistic (godless) alternative is more parsimonious, making it the preferred narrative. Gods won't be added before they are needed to account for some new finding requiring a supernatural intelligent designer. People ask what would fulfill that criterion. Answer: nothing can do that, so nothing ever will even if gods exist but don't modify nature in ways that nature could not on its own.

I would still prefer a naturalistic explanation - a race of superhuman, extraterrestrial, intelligent designers that arose naturalistically through abiogenesis and biological evolution, but with a big head start on man, because that answer is also more parsimonious than a theistic one. It only requires that things we know happen to happen, such as molecules coming together to arrange themselves into life and gene pools varying over time and being selected for by blind physical processes. We have all of that.

Atheist simply do not accept the Scriptures as evidence of testimony of God while theist would.

Critical thinkers don't accept any holy book as evidence of gods or the supernatural.

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.

Trying to make logical sense of the world doesn't mean success at it. Theism is not logical. It is faith-based. Logic gives us sound conclusions. There is no sound argument that concludes, "therefore, God," meaning that if you hold that belief, it is perforce by faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... or at least not known by anyone today.

Sure, that's one possibility:

- weak agnosticism: "the existence or non-existence of gods is currently unknowable."

- strong agnosticism: "the existence or non-existence of gods is inherently unknowable for all time."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, that's one possibility:

- weak agnosticism: "the existence or non-existence of gods is currently unknowable."

- strong agnosticism: "the existence or non-existence of gods is inherently unknowable for all time."

There is a 3rd version: Gods if non-human to the point of being knowable requires the entity knowing that must be non-human, then Gods are unknowable by humans.
Here is a way to understand it. If you to know a God, have to become one, you stop being you as a human.

 

[Trimijopulos]

... or at least not known by anyone today.

That makes us all idiots!

The ancients said “there are gods”, then came the theologians who said “No, there is only one God”, and we, the brainless moderns, cannot find out what the ancients meant by “gods” and what sort of frauds theologians are!!

 

[Boris Norris]

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?

What you mean is do they have a religion. Recently believers have attempted to link a type of religion to them but that's an oxymoron.

I mean, does an atheist live life expecting everything to be explainable.... factual.... proven?

If you believe something exists or happened etc, yes it should be proven. Faith provides nothing but a warm inner glow.

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.

We believe there is no god etc simply because there is no evidence to support it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you mean is do they have a religion. Recently believers have attempted to link a type of religion to them but that's an oxymoron.

If you believe something exists or happened etc, yes it should be proven. Faith provides nothing but a warm inner glow.

We believe there is no god etc simply because there is no evidence to support it.

Well, it depends on the definition of religion. For at least one version some atheists have a religion, not because they are atheists, but if they have a value system or a way to justify what matters in being a human.

 

[Boris Norris]

Well, it depends on the definition of religion. For at least one version some atheists have a religion,

Can you provide evidence of that because I know it is untrue.

not because they are atheists, but if they have a value system or a way to justify what matters in being a human.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can you provide evidence of that because I know it is untrue.

I'm an atheist who is not religious, and I strongly push back on the idea that 'everyone is religious in some fashion'.
However, there clearly are religious atheists, even though I'm not one.

Certain schools of Hinduism would be examples, as would some secular humanist types, particularly where they combine their beliefs with some level of religious practice (UU, at least in some cases, as an example)

 

[Apostle John]

Being a babbler isn't related to belief.

It is according to God. There are many verses in the Bible about being a fool or foolish. Babbling is defined as foolish talk.

 

[Nakosis]

So to define means "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action". That is a human action "meant". So in effect by saying something means X, it becomes X.
Let me show how that works. The definition of truth is what I Mikkel say is true becomes. a fact. So that is how the world works, because that is what truth means and is.

Yes, that is how it works. When you want to convey information you define the words you want to use so others understand what you mean by it. However, it is then understood to be used by you per your definition. Not anything else.

I may use the word truth by a more commonly used definition which is ok as long as we both know what is meant. So as long as you've define your usage of it, we're good. Though you probably should reiterate your definition whenever you meet someone new to avoid confusion.

 

[Nakosis]

I used to be an atheist. In retrospect I can see I believed in the unbelievable. Not wishing to light the blue touch paper for other atheists to start ranting but as an atheist I personally would babble endlessly to Christians in my family and anyone that tried to evangelise me that science had all the answers. Thankfully I’m an awakened born again Christian and can now see this is a fantasy belief.

If this is what you thought of science "that science had all the answers" then yes, that was a fantasy.
Science certainly doesn't have all of the answers. What science does is provide a method to test the answers you think are true.
That way you can have more certainty/reliability of what you accept as true.

If you no longer are concerned about the reliability of what you accept as true then you can simply rely on your feelings. Whatever makes you feel good about the world.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interestingly, I tend to associate atheism with the right-wing. In part this is because of all of those "skeptic" YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad, thunderf00t, and Amazing Atheist blowing up with the "anti-SJW" trend that's now turned into the "anti-woke" trend. As well as Richard Dawkins, eventually.

It's also due to the fact that Objectivists, LaVeyan Satanists, Machiavellians, and social Darwinists all tend to be both atheist and right-wing.

I used to be in a bubble of right-wing philosophies, though. For the longest time, I didn't even know that there were atheist leftists. I grew up being taught that leftists were nominal Christians who didn't really know what the Bible said, so I just thought they were all Christian for the longest time.

Color me surprised when I found out that liberals are neither leftist nor Christian. That's how little I knew about what they actually believed, because I grew up in a conservative echo-chamber where even the atheists were conservative.

Without going into specifics, because I am in no way involved or invested in atheist online communities, but they seem every bit as factional and juvenile as most other online communities.

I prefer communities that are organised around my passions (eg. Basketball) and am vaguely concerned about atheism being the uniting force in any community.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you provide evidence of that because I know it is untrue.

No, because evidence has a limit. So has true. But you and think differently and as long as we think differently about how we think differently, there is no need for me to explain it to you. How you think, works for you and you don't have to think like me to have a life. The same is true of me in reverse.
We are in effect doing cognitive relativism but according to you, that is not true and without evidence, yet it is a fact that we do it differently.

 

[PureX]

You're conflating atheist with critical thinker, which is understandable given that critical analysis of the evidence for and against god claims leads to agnostic atheism. Critical thinkers recognize that belief by faith - unjustified belief - is a logical error to be avoided.

You "critical thinkers" aren't even willing or able to be critical of your own misguided and absurdly biased thinking regarding faith. So pardon me if your labels carry no weight with me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm an atheist who is not religious, and I strongly push back on the idea that 'everyone is religious in some fashion'.
However, there clearly are religious atheists, even though I'm not one.

Certain schools of Hinduism would be examples, as would some secular humanist types, particularly where they combine their beliefs with some level of religious practice (UU, at least in some cases, as an example)

Well, I could link to at least 2 different explanation of what religion is, for which some atheists beyond UU fit the "bill", though they would protest, because it is an objective fact that they are rational and that religious people are not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Without going into specifics, because I am in no way involved or invested in atheist online communities, but they seem every bit as factional and juvenile as most other online communities.

I prefer communities that are organised around my passions (eg. Basketball) and am vaguely concerned about atheism being the uniting force in any community.

I think atheist groups are fine.

In my experience, they tend to either be about secular activism or about providing people with a space where they can get a bit of relief and have some fun without being inundated with the incessant religious noise of the society around them.

I like both of these ideas.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think atheist groups are fine.

In my experience, they tend to either be about secular activism or about providing people with a space where they can get a bit of relief and have some fun without being inundated with the incessant religious noise of the society around them.

I like both of these ideas.

Fair enough! My experience is admittedly limited.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough! My experience is admittedly limited.

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