What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

[ImmortalFlame]

It is simply a problem of taxonomy and the question whether there are more than two possible answers to a yes/no question.
If you are going to separate a group into two classes and your question for that is "do you believe in one or more intervening gods?" than you get the theists on the one side and the atheists on the other and everyone is either the first or the second and nobody is both.

I agree with this. I think the whole "atheism as default position" thing tends to get overplayed a lot in discussions, and it's much more useful to, as you say, delineate groups along various RESPONSES to questions rather than broad definitions.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are so wedded to this you can't even just answer the obvious without trying to obfuscate. Is a theist somebody who believes in god(s)? Yes. Does a baby believe in god(s)? No. Does a baby believe -- no KNOW -- that suckling on its mother's breast will yield needed nourishment? Yes. That baby knows what the breast is for. It doesn't need training or conceptualizations.

I'm not particularly "wedded" to anything and I'm certainly not trying to obfuscate either. If you're insistent on arguing that atheism is a "default" position then it's not a term a baby is going to be familiar with or the concepts behind it, the same with politics, philosophy, culture etc. So, you'd equally be arguing that a baby is A-political, A-cultural, A-philosophical as well for the sake of consistency, correct? Heck, you could apply it to people who are severely brain damaged from birth who will never understand or be able to grasp such concepts into adulthood but what would be the point? The term only becomes meaningful when applied to understanding so when I have conversations with people who identify as atheist, agnostic, theist etc then it's because they've used deduction and reasoning to arrive at their particular beliefs.

I'm guessing that you're not A-political etc despite that being your initial default position?

 

[wellwisher]

What makes somebody atheist and not a theist?

I was raised with religion as part of a balanced upbringing of secular and religion. Religious education was part of my overall education, but with religion having fewer hours in class than secular, per week. I started to shift more toward Atheism when I became a teen at 13, so I could participate in the hippy generation. I was Confirmed as a Catholic at age 13. That was when by formal religious education ended, and it was time to apply my up bringing, to my adult life. Secular education would continue through High School, College and Grad School.

Religion set up moral conflicts to the new experimental adult behavior of my hippie years, while Atheism made it easier to experiment; relative morality. For example, as a religious person, I believed one should not lie under any circumstances. But telling the truth about my experimental intent could get me in trouble. If I was an Atheist, I could make the truth, more relative, experiment, and stay out of trouble with my parents.

Atheism made life easier, but I still had a moral inhibitions, that placed limits on how far I would go. I never over did anything like some of my peers. The compromise was to use Atheism to deal with victimless crimes and taboos, and Religion to deal with people ,to make sure I created no victims, as I lived my freer life.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not particularly "wedded" to anything and I'm certainly not trying to obfuscate either. If you're insistent on arguing that atheism is a "default" position then it's not a term a baby is going to be familiar with or the concepts behind it, the same with politics, philosophy, culture etc. So, you'd equally be arguing that a baby is A-political, A-cultural, A-philosophical as well for the sake of consistency, correct? Heck, you could apply it to people who are severely brain damaged from birth who will never understand or be able to grasp such concepts into adulthood but what would be the point? The term only becomes meaningful when applied to understanding so when I have conversations with people who identify as atheist, agnostic, theist etc then it's because they've used deduction and reasoning to arrive at their particular beliefs.

I'm guessing that you're not A-political etc despite that being your initial default position?

You are beginning to get my point. If you put a bunch of very small children of different races and cultures together, they will not behave in a racist fashion to one another. They need to be taught to be racist, which (unfortunately) some of their parents and communities will be happy to do. Racists are made, not born. Liberals and conservatives are all made, not born, by being steeped in the families and cultures into which they were born. But teach a youngster, even one born into a conservative family, the principles of true "liberty" (as defined by Locke and Mill), and they are very likely to absorb some social conscience, too. Children who are born to theist families, and who live in basically theist communities and cultures will most often absorb theist thought and belief. But children born into atheist families and live in basically atheist communities have nothing to absorb, nothing to change their thinking about "gods," because they had no such thoughts to begin with.

And that is the basis for my argument, so long ago in this thread now, that theists are "made," but atheists are not. They remain, vis-a-vis "god-belief," as they were born.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are beginning to get my point. If you put a bunch of very small children of different races and cultures together, they will not behave in a racist fashion to one another. They need to be taught to be racist, which (unfortunately) some of their parents and communities will be happy to do. Racists are made, not born. Liberals and conservatives are all made, not born, by being steeped in the families and cultures into which they were born. But teach a youngster, even one born into a conservative family, the principles of true "liberty" (as defined by Locke and Mill), and they are very likely to absorb some social conscience, too. Children who are born to theist families, and who live in basically theist communities and cultures will most often absorb theist thought and belief. But children born into atheist families and live in basically atheist communities have nothing to absorb, nothing to change their thinking about "gods," because they had no such thoughts to begin with.

And that is the basis for my argument, so long ago in this thread now, that theists are "made," but atheists are not. They remain, vis-a-vis "god-belief," as they were born.

Do you consider yourself to have any independent and objective thought on issues at all or were all of your positions on everything from religion to politics up to the present day merely "made" due to influencing factors? I'm not denying that family background, environment and upbringing certainly has an influence in early years but I'd argue that most people (outside of extreme circumstances at any rate) arrive at a set of values independently including beliefs, politics etc as they grow up, become independent, question and search things out for themselves. Sometimes those values can change and in part, that can be because of exposure to different cultures, ideologies and the like but still, independently arrived at.

Most people when growing up will encounter atheistic, agnostic and theistic ideology, especially when reaching adulthood and beyond. That's only when any of these terms hold any significance, once they're understood. You've arrived at your conclusion that there's no deity through reasoning, is that fair? As a baby, you had no opinion on the matter of gods or lack thereof as you couldn't possibly have had one. Your atheism has come about once you had understanding of just what these issues entailed and the same applies to your politics etc and the same goes for me also. The same applies to people (in the main) who have different beliefs to your own or myself. They're no more "made" than either of us.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's your belief. What scientific evidence is there for that truth claim?

No. It's strong hard evidence.

See any newborns into the world praying and yelling, "Praise Jesus"?

Its a fact there are none, its repeatable, and definitely without a God.

 

[PureX]

As I have mentioned before, babies do tend to have a God figure - usually their mother and being so dependent upon her for so much - given that she means everything to a baby for the first few years of their life, and more, and given such, they will possibly have been primed to accept the God concept anyway. But I don't think it is a natural concept to just form on its own.

I think the God concept would eventually formulate in any human, anywhere, as they become aware of their own profound unknowing, and they become aware of their own profound vulnerability as a result. (Just as in fact happened among all humans everywhere in Earth.) Atheism is the new age anomaly, brought on by the illusion that science knows or will know everything that needs knowing. And therefor the gods are no longer necessary as stand-ins for the unknown, for us to implore or placate when we're feeling threatened by a world we can't understand or control.

 

[F1fan]

I agree with this. I think the whole "atheism as default position" thing tends to get overplayed a lot in discussions, and it's much more useful to, as you say, delineate groups along various RESPONSES to questions rather than broad definitions.

The word atheism is pretty broad, and like often happens in these discussions definitions get used quite sloppily. I suggest we could call babies non-theists since it is accurate. Then being babies also makes theism as a phenomenon irrelevant since theism requires a certain level of language ability, and what symbols mean. Dogs are non-theists, but they are also non-mechanics.

I think the issue should be discussing at what level of cognitive development can religion be understood.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you consider yourself to have any independent and objective thought on issues at all or were all of your positions on everything from religion to politics up to the present day merely "made" due to influencing factors? I'm not denying that family background, environment and upbringing certainly has an influence in early years but I'd argue that most people (outside of extreme circumstances at any rate) arrive at a set of values independently including beliefs, politics etc as they grow up, become independent, question and search things out for themselves. Sometimes those values can change and in part, that can be because of exposure to different cultures, ideologies and the like but still, independently arrived at.

Most people when growing up will encounter atheistic, agnostic and theistic ideology, especially when reaching adulthood and beyond. That's only when any of these terms hold any significance, once they're understood. You've arrived at your conclusion that there's no deity through reasoning, is that fair? As a baby, you had no opinion on the matter of gods or lack thereof as you couldn't possibly have had one. Your atheism has come about once you had understanding of just what these issues entailed and the same applies to your politics etc and the same goes for me also. The same applies to people (in the main) who have different beliefs to your own or myself. They're no more "made" than either of us.

I consider that human beings are capable of some independence of thought, but that we will always be very much the product of the sum of our experiences -- and in terms of the shaping of our general character, most especially the sum of our early experiences. The person who was taught as a young child to fear God's punishment will be very, very hard-pressed to reject that idea as an adult. This much is clear to anyone. The things are are most deeply impressed with during our earliest, formative years will forever be a part of our thought, no matter how hard we try to be completely independent and objective.

I grew up a very badly battered child, deeply scarred but with no god-belief that I have ever been aware of. As a result of my abuse, my principle values are humanistic and liberal, seeking fairness and decency for all people, and despising injustice. I cannot help that, and I cannot change. My perspective will always be skewed by totality of my experience. (Of course, I don't want to change it, either. My humanist viewpoints seem most natural and good to me.)

So, no, I did not arrive at my conclusion about no deity through reasoning -- I never believed it at all. But reasoning, now that I am capable of it, tells me that it is the right conclusion, because I do not have that nagging early indoctrination to cause me to reject my reasoning.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I consider that human beings are capable of some independence of thought, but that we will always be very much the product of the sum of our experiences -- and in terms of the shaping of our general character, most especially the sum of our early experiences. The person who was taught as a young child to fear God's punishment will be very, very hard-pressed to reject that idea as an adult. This much is clear to anyone. The things are are most deeply impressed with during our earliest, formative years will forever be a part of our thought, no matter how hard we try to be completely independent and objective.

I grew up a very badly battered child, deeply scarred but with no god-belief that I have ever been aware of. As a result of my abuse, my principle values are humanistic and liberal, seeking fairness and decency for all people, and despising injustice. I cannot help that, and I cannot change. My perspective will always be skewed by totality of my experience. (Of course, I don't want to change it, either. My humanist viewpoints seem most natural and good to me.)

So, no, I did not arrive at my conclusion about no deity through reasoning -- I never believed it at all. But reasoning, now that I am capable of it, tells me that it is the right conclusion, because I do not have that nagging early indoctrination to cause me to reject my reasoning.

Firstly, let me thank you for the candour of your response and I'm sorry that you had to endure abuse that no child, or adult for that matter should ever experience. I'm deeply sorry for that. I had no such misfortune as a child, I grew up with responsible parents in ostensibly an agnostic environment with no fear of what you've experienced whatsoever. I concede that in different circumstances I could very well hold an entirely different outlook on life altogether than I do now, however I tend to think that it's in more extreme circumstances that our formative years can colour our perceptions to such an extent that objectivity and independent thought are affected deep into adulthood. That's my subjective opinion of course.

You're quite right that a child raised in a 'hellfire and brimstone' upbringing or some such is likely to be deeply affected by it and throwing off the shackles of that kind of indoctrination is sure not going to happen overnight. When I was in my late teens I started to question things and ended up going to an evangelical church through a friend of mine I knew at school who encouraged me to go. At first I was okay with it as I met some new people and there were some pretty girls as well so it seemed like a good idea. The more I was going there, the more I found myself clashing with what was taught and a good side of that was to do with "hell" and some odious opinions surrounding it and after a while I left because some of it was absolutely sickening to me. I pretty much left anything to do with any sort of religion for years afterwards yet I'd had enough experience to know I couldn't be an atheist either. I don't have anything empirical to offer on that score and it would be pointless to describe in essence either. Suffice to say that there's logical and rational reasons as to why I'm not, the same as there are why I don't ascribe to any 'organized religion' either.

My principle values align with how you describe your own and a good many other people hold the same or similar I would posit. Fairness, decency, a despising of injustice etc? I've held them for years and there's no logical or moral reason to abandon them. If you don't mind my saying so, it's not necessarily the abuse you suffered that led you to hold these principles, they could simply be intrinsic to you.

 

[PureX]

The point is, atheism isn't a doctrine, belief system or intellectual conclusion. We're using different definitions and talking past one another. By the currently preferred definition, simple lack of belief, would a baby, or an innocent deep in the Amazon rain forest, not be a-theist; without a God-concept?

There is no such thing as a "lack". You are claiming that nothing is something. This is a fundamental problem with atheism as it is so often being expressed around here. That nothing is something. That "no evidence" should be taken as evidence. That no belief in gods should justify belief in no gods. And so on. It's a fundamental logical incoherence that gets repeated over and over and over among atheists these days.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think the God concept would eventually formulate in any human, anywhere, as they become aware of their own profound unknowing, and they become aware of their own profound vulnerability as a result. (Just as in fact happened among all humans everywhere in Earth.) Atheism is the new age anomaly, brought on by the illusion that science knows or will know everything that needs knowing. And therefor the gods are no longer necessary as stand-ins for the unknown, for us to implore or placate when we're feeling threatened by a world we can't understand or control.

You think this is still likely when so much of reality can be explained by the various sciences, where evolution is generally accepted by the majority of scientists (and most others) as being the best explanation as to how life has diverged since it began - and produced humans in this process - and where, if religions were not taught as 'the' explanations for reality then there might be no necessity to invent a God? Given that anyone who does care to look at life (and the universe -as to which we are still ignorant) with more than a cursory glance can see as much chaos or disorder (as to kill or be killed) in life, and not some fanciful picture of everything being designed for humans in every way.

There still might be a God or something similar as an option but I doubt it would be the first thing to come to mind if we were more knowledgeable and religions were not taught from the earliest ages, in my view at least.

 

[Whateverist]

There is no such thing as a "lack". You are claiming that nothing is something. This is a fundamental problem with atheism as it is so often being expressed around here. That nothing is something. That "no evidence" should be taken as evidence. That no belief in gods should justify belief in no gods. And so on. It's a fundamental logical incoherence that gets repeated over and over and over among atheists these days.

I agree in part but mostly I blame the lack of an adequate understanding of what it is which gave rise to god belief and the mess so many professing believers make of it when they try to explain. Maybe some nons live in such Bible saturated. Communities that they feel a greater need for affiliation based on non adherence to the dominant group?

 

[PureX]

You think this is still likely when so much of reality can be explained by the various sciences, where evolution is generally accepted by the majority of scientists (and most others) as being the best explanation as to how life has diverged since it began - and produced humans in this process - and where, if religions were not taught as 'the' explanations for reality then there might be no necessity to invent a God? Given that anyone who does care to look at life (and the universe -as to which we are still ignorant) with more than a cursory glance can see as much chaos or disorder (as to kill or be killed) in life, and not some fanciful picture of everything being designed for humans in every way.

There still might be a God or something similar as an option but I doubt it would be the first thing to come to mind if we were more knowledgeable and religions were not taught from the earliest ages, in my view at least.

Theism is not primarily about explainig reality. It's about gaining control of it. So long as, and to the degree that we humans cannot control our own destiny (reality) we will turn to the gods to implore them to do it for us. I know the current 'scientism cult' like to imagine that science is able or soon will be able to do this for us at least better than the gods do, but so far the vast majority of humans don't believe this. So the God ideal remains acceptable and useful by a very large margin.

Maybe some day that will change, but that day is not soon. And wildly over-estimating the power of science isn't going to change that. The power of faith in God is far more effective for the 'believers' than any atheist will ever be able to understand.

 

[PureX]

I agree in part but mostly I blame the lack of an adequate understanding of what it is which gave rise to god belief and the mess so many professing believers make of it when they try to explain. Maybe some nons live in such Bible saturated. Communities that they feel a greater need for affiliation based on non adherence to the dominant group?

Sure, but their first mistake is in allowing these religious cults to convince them that religion is theism and theism is religion. They falsely insist that their religious depiction of God, is God, because the professors of these religions want to usurp God's authority for themselves. And then abuse others with it.

I understand the desire to break free of that, of course, but accepting their depictions of God, as God, is not breaking free. And neither is rejecting the idea of God or faith in God all together, as a result.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Theism is not primarily about explainig reality. It's about gaining control of it. So long as, and to the degree that we humans cannot control our own destiny (reality) we will turn to the gods to explore them to do it for us. I know the current 'scientism cult' like to imagine that science is able or soon will be able to do this for us at least better than the gods do, but so far the vast majority of humans don't believe this. So the God ideal remains acceptable and useful by a very large margin.

Maybe some day that will change, but that day is not soon. And wildly over-estimating the power of science isn't going to change that. The power of faith in God is far more effective for the 'believers' than any atheist will ever be able to understand.

I doubt most people have such a downer on science as you imagine, even if they will have beliefs that tend to override scientific explanations - given the numbers believing in the afterlife, the paranormal, etc. - since they use the products of science every day and in every way, and all mostly after far fewer years than religions have been on Earth. Who knows what the future will bring.

 

[PureX]

I doubt most people have such a downer on science as you imagine, even if they will have beliefs that tend to override scientific explanations - given the numbers believing in the afterlife, the paranormal, etc. - since they use the products of science every day and in every way, and all mostly after far fewer years than religions have been on Earth. Who knows what the future will bring.

But they are also seeing that all this scientific functionality is not bringing any significant moral or spiritual value into their lives. And that it is in fact causing as much harm as it is mitigating. Every new bit of physical functionality science comes up with ends up getting used to enslave and exploit people as much if not more than it's being used to make their lives better.

Science becomes just another complex aspect of our reality that we need our gods to control for us.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But they are also seeing that all this scientific functionality is not bringing any significant moral or spiritual value into their lives. And that it is in fact causing as much harm as it is mitigating it. Every new bit of physical functionality science come up with ends up getting used to enslave and exploit people, as much if not more than it's being used to make their lives better.

Science becomes just another aspect of our reality that we need our gods to control for us.

But that isn't the purpose of science. Perhaps people need to actually look at what science does (tries to do, should do) rather than ascribe purposes. Of course there is much else that we need to look at, but religions mainly are remnants of the past and easy explanations for mostly ignorant people - at the time, that is - even if they might make sense even today. But we should accept the lessons as to morality and such (which ultimately didn't come from religions even if formulated by so many, and since they vary, not that useful) and leave the rest behind. Given that 'the rest' is that which still divides us. To think that we can't arrive at a consensus as to morality and apart from religions I believe is head-in-the-sand thinking. The Golden Rule essentially encapsulates how we should treat others and it is the core of most religions.

 

[PureX]

But that isn't the purpose of science. Perhaps people need to actually look at what science does (tries to do, should do) rather than ascribe purposes. Of course there is much else that we need to look at, but religions mainly are remnants of the past and easy explanations for mostly ignorant people - at the time, that is - even if they might make sense even today. But we should accept the lessons as to morality and such (which ultimately didn't come from religions even if formulated by so many, and since they vary, not that useful) and leave the rest behind. Given that 'the rest' is that which still divides us. To think that we can't arrive at a consensus as to morality and apart from religions I believe is head-in-the-sand thinking. The Golden Rule essentially encapsulates how we should treat others and it is the core of most religions.

Sadly, it appears that you have very little idea what religions do, or why they are as important to people as they are. You seem to imagine that they are nothing more that ignorance based superstitions when they are far more then that.

As to the purpose of science, that is for humanity to decide. If engaging in this endeavor does not serve the well being of humanity, there is no reason for humanity to continue engaging it it. And so far, the jury is still out. Science does provide us with increased functionality, but because it's fundamentally amoral, that increased functionality is not resulting in a clear net gain in well being for a great many humans. And keep in mind the criteria is not just living longer, it's living better, and with greater purpose and more valuable result.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sadly, it appears that you have very little idea what religions do, or why they are as important to people as they are. You seem to imagine that they are nothing more that ignorance based superstitions when they are far more then that.

Well touché, given you don't appear to know what science does. I can at least observe what religions do, and have done so for about six decades - and it isn't what so many espouse as to such. If they were so beneficial for humans then they wouldn't have caused so much strife between peoples - but they do and mostly did from the origins of each. Plenty alive now who can live quite satisfactorily without religion.

As to the purpose of science, that is for humanity to decide. If engaging in this endeavor does not serve the well being of humanity, there is no reason for humanity to continue engaging it it. And so far, the jury is still out. Science does provide us with increased functionality, but because it's fundamentally amoral, that increased functionality is not resulting in a clear net gain in well being for a great many humans. And keep in mind the criteria is not just living longer, it's living better, and with greater purpose and more valuable result.

It's still humans making the decisions though - not especially the scientists as to such. If many will use science for their own ends, as do so many with religions, who is to blame - the scientists or those users/exploiters of such?