Why are most people who answer my questions atheists ?

[Valjean]

The simple fact that you are forced to use these silly double negatives in this "definition" of yours only serves to illuninate the innate and deliberate dishonesty of it. And anyway, this is not the definition of an atheist. It's the definition of an atheist's corpse. The definition of an atheist is someone that has rejected the philosophical proposisiton made by theism as being invalid. That IS a consciously chosen position, presumably based on some course of reasoning.

It's also someone completely unaware of theistic propositions, or who simply ignores them.
Like Evangelicalhumanist, the only time I even encounter propositions being made by theists is here in RF.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't define myself by what I don't believe. Quite the opposite.

I don't believe in leprechauns, dragons or little green men from Mars, either, but these don't "define" me or have any particular effect on my thoughts, behavior or world-view.

I certainly agree with this point. To be an atheist is to be a member of a broad class of individuals. To "define oneself" goes beyond just falling into a descriptive bucket. It involves having a sense of self-worth, goals, morality, standing in the world, etc. So it is a misleading to say that atheists define themselves in terms of what they don't believe in. People certainly don't define themselves in terms of Santa Claus when we deny the existence of that mythological being.

 

[Firenze]

Apparently atheist forums are boring so they come here to hone their heckling skills.

Or… atheists are more educated on the Bible and can provide more honest and accurate answers.

 

[PureX]

It's also someone completely unaware of theistic propositions, or who simply ignores them.

No one is that stupid. Once we're made aware of the God possibility it would be very difficult for us to ignore it. Even remaining undecided would be very difficult. As we just aren't built that way.

Like Evangelicalhumanist, the only time I even encounter propositions being made by theists is here in RF.

And they very rarely do so here, either, except in the minds of those who come here to fight with them.

 

[Copernicus]

Not to mention that it defines anything not a theist: oranges, bicycles, dead bodies ... That's a very, very poor definition indeed. So one must ask himself; "why be so deliberately and absurdly vague?" And the answer is pretty clear. It's so the "atheist" by this definition never has state or defend their own position while they attack everyone else's.

I think that there is a little of that going on, because atheists are often challenged to justify their rejection of belief. Most of us take the position that we don't have to justify lack of belief in something for which there is lack of any compelling evidence. So it is reasonable to reject belief in an existential claim that lacks evidence. However, I don't think it is necessary to try to build Occam's razor into a definition of atheism. Whether or not rejection of belief is reasonable is independent of how people use words like "atheist".

Something is better than nothing. But honesty would be even better, still. As every atheist I've ever encountered "believed in" a whole range if anti-religious and anti-theist ideals even as they so persistently claimed to be "unbelievers".

I don't think that the "lack of belief" definition is the slightest bit dishonest, and I don't think that atheists are necessarily anti-religious or anti-theist. Personally, I don't care whether people believe or don't believe in gods. It is only bothersome when their beliefs have some negative impact on my life.

There are many individual concepts of God, but that's fodder for theological debate. Not for the theism debate. Atheists are by definition rejecting a philosophical proposition: that God/gods (by whatever concept) exist in a way that effects our experience of existence. (Otherwise the whole proposal would be irrelevant.)

I don't quite follow your train of thought here. I make no distinction between a theological debate and a theism debate. Both are "religious debates".

There are very few humans beyond newborns and toddlers that are not aware of this basic proposition. Meaning that they are either in agreement with it (theists), in disagreement with it (atheists), or they are withholding determination (this is very rare, but still possible, I suppose).

And degreees of surety have nothing to do with any of this simply because the labels relate to the IDEA PROPOSED, not to the degree of surety any of us holds in relation to our response to the proposal. Thus; our "belief" is irrelevant.

Again, I have trouble following what you are trying to say here. There are as many different perspectives on religious belief as there are people in the world, and I fail to see why degrees of certainty have nothing to do with any of this. People waver between belief and skepticism all the time. It is perfectly legitimate to be so uncertain about the existence of something that one takes no stand either way.

 

[PureX]

I think that there is a little of that going on, because atheists are often challenged to justify their rejection of belief. Most of us take the position that we don't have to justify lack of belief in something for which there is lack of any compelling evidence. So it is reasonable to reject belief in an existential claim that lacks evidence. However, I don't think it is necessary to try to build Occam's razor into a definition of atheism. Whether or not rejection of belief is reasonable is independent of how people use words like "atheist".

Actually, the term "atheism" quite literally means "the antithetical response to theism". It refers to the antithetical response to the theist proposition that God/gods exist and effect the human experience of existing: i.e., ... that no God/gods exist in any way that effects the human experience of existence. This is a philosophical position. The word "atheism" does actually mean something.

I don't think that the "lack of belief" definition is the slightest bit dishonest, and I don't think that atheists are necessarily anti-religious or anti-theist.

Then you are apparently living on a different planet then I am. Because nearly every self-proclaimed atheist on this site is clearly anti-religious to the point where they absolutely refuse to separate religion from theism so they attack and dismiss them both, together.

Personally, I don't care whether people believe or don't believe in gods. It is only bothersome when their beliefs have some negative impact on my life.

That's mostly impossible, as its only their actions that can actually effect anyone else's life.

I don't quite follow your train of thought here. I make no distinction between a theological debate and a theism debate. Both are "religious debates".

Yes, and that's a big problem. It's why the "debates" around here never go anywhere but around in circles. Willful ignorance and bias just grows and grows and grows in the perpetual vagueness of undefined and inarticulate linguistics.

Again, I have trouble following what you are trying to say here. There are as many different perspectives on religious belief as there are people in the world, and I fail to see why degrees of certainty have nothing to do with any of this.

I fail to see what religious belief has to do with anything at all. Religion is not theism. Religious depictions of God/gods are not God. Personal concepts and ideas and images of God/gods are not God, either. Whatever you or I think God is, is not what God is, if God even exists. So all this fussing and fighting about all these millions of imagined and idealized depictions is just a colossal waste of time and energy. Except that our egos love it. THEY can't get enough of it. Watch a creationist start a thread and see it run into thousands of posts as the egos just keep on talking past each other. As the deaf just keep on shouting in earnest.

People waver between belief and skepticism all the time.

Yes, which is why we would be fools to consider declarations of certitude (belief) to have any intellectual significance.

It is perfectly legitimate to be so uncertain about the existence of something that one takes no stand either way.

Taking no stand means not attacking anyone else who takes a stand. So around here, those people pretty much don't exist. Around anywhere, mostly. Because most humans have egos that really aren't happy with a "no stand here" policy. The ego wants to be right even if it's glaringly wrong.

 

[Valjean]

No one is that stupid. Once we're made aware of the God possibility it would be very difficult for us to ignore it. Even remaining undecided would be very difficult. As we just aren't built that way.

And they very rarely do so here, either, except in the minds of those who come here to fight with them.

Many non-westernized cultures are unaware of Abrahamic, creator/rulemaker/judge type Gods. Many cultures, even if they do believe in supernatural beings, believe in nature spirits more like the færies or naiads than our idea of God.
For that matter, the ancient gods of Rome or Scandinavia were more like incorporeal humans, going about their own lives and interacting with humans mostly tangentially.

 

[LuisDantas]

No one is that stupid. Once we're made aware of the God possibility it would be very difficult for us to ignore it. Even remaining undecided would be very difficult. As we just aren't built that way.

Gee, I never thought you admired me quite so much.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Exactly my point - no God concept, no atheism. Atheism is defined in precise relation to the very thing in which the atheist professes disbelief.

How silly. If nobody had invented stamps, we wouldn't have philatelists. But we do have stamps, and some people are philatelists. Nobody, so far as I know, seems to think that not collecting stamps is something that should define a person.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No one is that stupid. Once we're made aware of the God possibility it would be very difficult for us to ignore it. Even remaining undecided would be very difficult. As we just aren't built that way.

And once one is made aware of the Astrology possibility? I mean, it's everywhere. It's mentioned in more newspaper editions than God! It's appeared in musicals like Hair, people have been known to choose their friends and spouses, even define their friends and spouses (and themselves) by their "star signs." Oh, sorry, if we were in China, I wouldn't be an Aries, I'd be a Rat. But small difference in that.

But I know this -- the only effect that the position of planets at my birth could possibly have is gravitational, and since gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between masses, I know that the nurses and doctor in the delivery room had more effect on me than any planet -- even the Sun. And to suppose that the simple rotating schedule of 12 year cycles affects who one is based on the year in which they were born is clearly baseless.

And so, in spite of how ubiquitous all this zodiacal belief is, and how many people express deep faith in it, I have no difficulty whatever ignoring it.

So why should a "God possibility," which I disavow on the basis of no more evidence than the effects of the signs of the zodiac or the Chinese calendar, be any different?

 

[Audie]

Are you all for real? Religious folks constantly tell atheists to "look into it", learn more, study the religion.
Well? The best way to hone an argument and find flaws in a position is too present it to people who don't agree and may know more about a subject. So here we are asking people why they believe what, presenting ideas, scholarship and so on......

And you best comparison is to a flat earther?
Before you take something to be true it should be able to stand up to all criticisms and arguments. What made you switch from atheist? Why were you an atheist? Why arguments changed your mind? How do you know they are reliable? And do you care about what is actually true?

Atheists are one place to learn from but religious people tend to be familiar with arguments for a religion. Oddly they are extremely unfamiliar with historical scholarship, but anyways, this shouldn't be a mystery? How is learning become so demonized?

Why is learning / education so often daemonized
by the religious?

Its a threat.​

 

[Valjean]

No one is that stupid. Once we're made aware of the God possibility it would be very difficult for us to ignore it. Even remaining undecided would be very difficult. As we just aren't built that way.

And they very rarely do so here, either, except in the minds of those who come here to fight with them.

Are these people "that stupid?"

Members of an uncontacted tribe in Acre, Brazil, in 2009

Are they theists, or atheists who have rejected God?

 

[RestlessSoul]

How silly. If nobody had invented stamps, we wouldn't have philatelists. But we do have stamps, and some people are philatelists. Nobody, so far as I know, seems to think that not collecting stamps is something that should define a person.

The philately analogy fails even more miserably than the unicorn/leprechaun trope. There are no a-philatelists debating the existence of stamps with philatelists, as far as I’m aware.

 

[Heyo]

The philately analogy fails even more miserably than the unicorn/leprechaun trope. There are no a-philatelists debating the existence of stamps with philatelists, as far as I’m aware.

And I don't debate the existence of gods. Well, I do but that isn't because I need to prove that there are none. I'm perfectly fine with believers having an invisible friend. Everybody has the right to be wrong.
It only gets serious when their belief impacts on my life or that of my fellow non believers. Tax exemptions, curricula, influence on laws, if you want to have those, you need a reason. An unverified (and unverifiable) claim is not enough for that but if you can convince decision makers that you do have a legit claim, my liberties are in danger.
And I would argue against philatelists just as fierce if they would try to impact my life.

 

[joelr]

As far as I can tell; I am, yes.

That was rhetorical and expressing surprise at the lack of logic in the question.

I’m sure that question isn’t posed to me. I do not “demonise”; especially not learning.

Humbly,
Hermit

Well you did. It's said too many times by religious people that atheists should study the facts and such. Is this not a better place to learn than an atheist forum? Both sources of information would be balanced. You cannot know your arguments are air tight by only speaking to atheists?
Knowledge is an ongoing process, and religion and the like is a huge topic. So I'm seeing this surprise at people with different belief systems to be strange. It is demonizing learning. In both ways. Atheists and religious people should be exposed to different arguments and different answers.
You never discussed faith? Ok cool, but I care about what is true and if faith is a reliable path to truth and this is a good place to discuss faith.
If you want knowledge you should go to places that think differently and find out if they have good reasons for their beliefs.

 

[joelr]

Why is learning / education so often daemonized
by the religious?

Its a threat.​

Owning an English Bible was once a crime. Hmmm.

Yes, it's a threat. The solution - denial.

 

[PureX]

Many non-westernized cultures are unaware of Abrahamic, creator/rulemaker/judge type Gods. Many cultures, even if they do believe in supernatural beings, believe in nature spirits more like the færies or naiads than our idea of God.
For that matter, the ancient gods of Rome or Scandinavia were more like incorporeal humans, going about their own lives and interacting with humans mostly tangentially.

Unseen spirit beings. A realization among humans all over the world and all across time. The representations of abstracted thought that causes humans to ask questions that they cannot answer.

 

[PureX]

Gee, I never thought you admired me quite so much.

You are clearly not undecided. You like to think you are, I guess, but every post you write indicates that you are firmly entrenched in the "no gods until proven otherwise" camp. That's not being undecided.

 

[PureX]

And once one is made aware of the Astrology possibility? I mean, it's everywhere. It's mentioned in more newspaper editions than God! It's appeared in musicals like Hair, people have been known to choose their friends and spouses, even define their friends and spouses (and themselves) by their "star signs." Oh, sorry, if we were in China, I wouldn't be an Aries, I'd be a Rat. But small difference in that.

The fact that you had to change the subject to try and make your point dismisses your point. Astrology is predictive. Such 'oracles' have always been popular, but they are not the same as nor as universal as the ideal of "God/gods". Deities are not generally predictive. They are representations of the great mystery of existence. Often used to provide humans with an illusion of knowledge and control that we do not actually possess.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And I don't debate the existence of gods. Well, I do but that isn't because I need to prove that there are none. I'm perfectly fine with believers having an invisible friend. Everybody has the right to be wrong.
It only gets serious when their belief impacts on my life or that of my fellow non believers. Tax exemptions, curricula, influence on laws, if you want to have those, you need a reason. An unverified (and unverifiable) claim is not enough for that but if you can convince decision makers that you do have a legit claim, my liberties are in danger.
And I would argue against philatelists just as fierce if they would try to impact my life.

We’re at cross purposes then. If you’re opposed to religious institutions receiving special political or tax status, I acknowledge the strength of your case.

That said, the nonsense about philately, unicorns, leprechauns etc is infantile and doesn’t fly in any case.