Are there any "true" atheists?

[abaddon]

Atheists can be like that in that they may harbor some belief in a God just in case there is one! That way they get the best of both worlds: They enjoy the freedom of being an atheist and have the hope of eternal life if there is any.

If the person doesn't believe in god, they're an atheist. If they do, they're theist. If it were possible to be so incredibly irrational as to believe both "there is a god" and "there is no god", then the belief in the god means they are "with god-belief" (theism) and not "without god-belief" (atheism) and thus they are theists.

How would you categorize me seeing that I have sound reasoning to refute arguments for the existence of any God, yet it seems that I never completely shook my religious indoctrination? Am I a theist with atheistic leanings?

Sounds like you're an agnostic theist maybe. But then if the theism is considered as indoctrination by you, instead of your reasoned stance, then maybe you're an atheist with theist leanings? You gotta sort that out yourself.

Atheism and theism are a binary. But when you dig down into sub-categories, it complexifies. There are a few different sorts of atheism. There are several kinds of theism.

Then there's the gnostic/agnostic scale. This isn't a third option to atheism/theism. It's the grading of how much certainty is felt about one's theism or atheism.

Sort your thoughts and feelings and keep in mind it doesn't have to be dead certainty either way. There's no other reasonable response to indoctrination than to work on shaking it off. But then the result doesn't have to be 'militant atheism'.

This is something I've wondered about when watching AvT arguments on the Net. It's usually bible-believers and anti-religion atheists arguing -- so the picture painted is a very simplistic dichotomy. And so I've wondered "do these bible-believers understand that the alternative to bible-believing is not necessary a total 'deconversion' from religion?" I think some theists feel repulsed by the atheists they see on the net and think "well, that's ugly so I'll stick with my theism". But they could choose another theism than Jehovah, since Jehovah doesn't survive thinking about it. They could drop belief in gods but stay religious. They could do a number of other things besides... all it takes is reading and exploring better sources on the topic of religion than the simple-minded Science-vs-Religion stuff in atheist forums.

In any case it's important to follow the light of reason so impulses don't use you like a marionette doll.

 

[bilby]

Do folks here think that a moment of theistic behavior can make an atheist into a temporary or partial theist, and thus not a "true atheist"?

Say for example his child is dying so, in his desperate emotional state, he silently says a prayer. Not long after he thinks "that prayer was an irrational impulse" and he's back to full-on conscious disbelief.

So is that person mostly atheist but partly theist? Or is this just an example of an impulse and not a demonstration of his beliefs?

I think that such impulses are a conditioned response caused by being intensely exposed to religion at a very young age. They seem to be an unavoidable phenomenon in first generation atheists (people who were raised as religious, but then left their religion to become atheists), but completely absent in people who were never taught to be religious.

The insinuation is always that "everyone is, in their hearts, a believer"; That the overwhelming feeling that prayer (or other religious practices) can help, is an indication that they were wrong to abandon religious practice. But it's nothing of the sort. It's just an indication that humans are very susceptible to conditioning in early childhood.

As a second generation atheist on my mother's side, and a third generation atheist on my father's, I have no such impulses, and note that they are absent in my father, but that my mum still has them when under extreme stress, and despises that fact.

Ultimately it's an evolved quirk of the way humans learn. And it's been leveraged as a way to prop up belief by religions, since the first shaman persuaded the first tribal chief to believe that shamans should be given special treatment.

 

[pood]

Gnosis is “knowledge of” the divine. The agnostic claims no such knowledge, without necessarily denying that such knowledge might be had.

So gnosis is claim about knowledge or truth, not belief. One might believe without claiming knowledge (agnostic theist) or disbelieve without claiming knowledge (agnostic atheist; me).

In addition one might be a Christian atheist (espousing Christian ethics without believing in God) — Dostoevsky might have been once such. And then one might not only disbelieve in God but oppose Christian ethics (Nietzsche, Rand, etc). One might even, in trembling fear of Pascal and his wager, follow the author’s advice and, as a non-believer, practice the norms and rituals of Christianity in an effort to brainwash ones’s self into belief and thereby avoid the post-mortem fires of hell that one does not actually believe in.

One might be a weak atheist, having no belief in a god or gods, or a strong atheist, positively believing, even claiming to know (anti-gnosis as opposed to a-gnosis) that there is no God. This seems to fit Bilby.

One might take the scientific viewpoint, which views results as probabilistic, never certain. Hence Dawkins ascribes a (very low) probability that there is a God. Does that mean he believes “a little bit” in God? No, it just means he views the entire enterprise from a scientific perspective.

One night believe there is no afterlife but that there is some kind of God (Lincoln, it would seem), or believe there is no God but some form of afterlife (some eastern religious traditions).

In sum the theist-atheist divide is not nearly so cut-and-dried, so binary, as many might think.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In any case it's important to follow the light of reason so impulses don't use you like a marionette doll.

I agree entirely but find that making this observation and experiencing its resultant behavior is impossible for many people. Call it natural selection. Cognitive capacity is physical and therefore as fixed as height and eye color and any other physical characteristic. And then there's the external environment. Lots of limitations and therefore lots of different visions.

 

[bilby]

a strong atheist, positively believing, even claiming to know (anti-gnosis as opposed to a-gnosis) that there is no God. This seems to fit Bilby.

I don't claim to know; I actually do know

Insofar as anyone can know anything at all.

Either there's no gods, or all of our best tested physics is not just wrong, but wildly and obviously wrong.

It's not. We checked.

I know there are no gods for the exact same reasons that I know there are no perpetual motion machines.

Do you claim to know that perpetual motion is impossible, or do you just know it?

Do you claim to know that rocks don't fall upwards, or do you just know it?

One might take the scientific viewpoint, which views results as probabilistic, never certain. Hence Dawkins ascribes a (very low) probability that there is a God. Does that mean he believes “a little bit” in God? No, it just means he views the entire enterprise from a scientific perspective.

That's not the scientific perspective, it's the ultra-pedantic philosophical perspective.

Do you think that Dawkins also ascribes a very low probability to rocks that fall upwards? He probably ascribes that a roughly equal probability as he does the probability of gods. It's a probability so low that all but the most extreme of pedants simply call it "zero".

When the only opening for a belief in something is the possibility that our entire ability to know anything at all is questionable, that's not a basis for believing that thing.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do folks here think that a moment of theistic behavior can make an atheist into a temporary or partial theist, and thus not a "true atheist"?

As you know I think that that is a definite possibility. Is there something sacred to believing that an atheist can never entertain theistic thoughts?

Say for example his child is dying so, in his desperate emotional state, he silently says a prayer. Not long after he thinks "that prayer was an irrational impulse" and he's back to full-on conscious disbelief.

So is that person mostly atheist but partly theist? Or is this just an example of an impulse and not a demonstration of his beliefs?

I'd say that that is an atheist who for at least a moment experienced theism. The theism might be more than momentary, of course.

IMO, a short-lived irrational impulse does not define what a person is beyond showing that "yep, you're human". They're what people are trying to overcome by using their reason. If you reason that there's no god, then that's that. What you consciously deliberate is all that factors into it.

It's hard to define what a person is based on his or her beliefs. I've gotten out of the habit of calling myself an atheist for that reason. My beliefs can and do change while I remain the same. I don't deny it nor lose any sleep over it.

When I was younger I had some episodes of sleep paralysis. I could open my eyes and see the room but not move my body. Sometimes the darkest shadow in the room's corner would step out and walk towards me and stand over the bed. My mind would scream "you gotta wake up and you gotta wake up NOW!" And then eventually when I woke up I realized "ah, it's just the brain trying to warn me that dark places can hide danger in them, and my imagination dressed the fear up in the imagery of a 'demon'."

Nevertheless, the disbelief in 'ontologically real' demons was, and still is, complete. Regardless what imagery comes up in altered states.

That's a good example of how our beliefs can differ based on our circumstances. I sometimes dream of demons, and they seem very real while I have those dreams.

That we inherited anthropomorphic impulsing from our ancestors only defines us as human, it doesn't determine that we're all "really" animists and ought to include that into our self-descriptions. "I'm an atheist but with animistic/anthropomorphic tendencies in my unconscious" would be a silly thing to bother to say.

Sometimes truth seems silly. I see no reason to think that atheism and animism in the same person is impossible. The human brain evidently can entertain conflicting thoughts and beliefs.

IMV it's just the bits of our minds we're in control of that we're talking about when we discuss whether we're atheist or theist, naturalist or supernaturalist, et al.

If you are referring to our "logical selves," then yes, I think there may be at least two parts of the psyche: The "natural man" and "he who is spiritual." We live in a world in which we need reason to survive, and we live in another world we want to survive in.

So, are there true atheists? Yes. If you deliberate about gods and decide there are none, or probably are none, then you're a true atheist regardless if there's "some irrational theism lurking in the depths of the consciousness".

If that's how you define what a true atheist is, then I can live with that. But the possibility that atheism and theism are not mutually exclusive in a single person I find to be intriguing.

Let me close with an important truth: "Logical" is a word that describes some statements and arguments. To describe a person as logical is a category error.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Let me close with an important truth: "Logical" is a word that describes some statements and arguments. To describe a person as logical is a category error.

Whose error?
Oxford Languages Dictionary:
Logical - characterized or capable of clear, sound reasoning: 'her logical mind'
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Logical, def. 2: capable of reasoning, or of using reason in an orderly, cogent fashion: 'a logical thinker'

 

[steve_bank]

I suppose one can be conservative republican and progressive democrat at the same time.?Or communist and capitalist.?

If internally one goes back and forth between theist and atheist then I'd say one has a dilema that needs to be resolved. Or stock up on Tylenol for those headaces you give yourself.

Logically claiming that A and !A are both true is a logical fault.

If one always believes in both theism and atheism and is comfortable with that I'd say there are probably psychological issues involved.

Going back and forth between two mutually exclusive conditions is part of a healthy reasoning process.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Let me close with an important truth: "Logical" is a word that describes some statements and arguments. To describe a person as logical is a category error.

Whose error?
Oxford Languages Dictionary:
Logical - characterized or capable of clear, sound reasoning: 'her logical mind'
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Logical, def. 2: capable of reasoning, or of using reason in an orderly, cogent fashion: 'a logical thinker'

That's not a good definition of "logic" in the context of the discipline of logic. I've studied logic, and nowhere did I read anything about "logical minds" or "logical thinkers." Instead, I studied statements and how one or more of them can be combined to create validly logical arguments. That's what I meant by "logical." The Oxford dictionary defines "logical" in the colloquial which is fine as long as it is understood that way.

So I'm sorry for the confusion. When I post arguments in this forum I aim to argue as a logician rather than a layman, and I try to avoid using terms with their colloquial meanings.

 

[DBT]

Apparently, all it takes to get to heaven is the slightest belief. Who knew.

Only if it's the right belief and the right god, apparenty. Pick the wrong one and you are toast.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I have it on good authority* that, back in June, Pat Robertson was told by the Islamic heavenly gatekeeper, Ridwan, to hit the bricks. (Because he did lower Christianity's repute in the western world, he was awarded 72 virgin... goats.)

*me, but I am good.

 

[steve_bank]

I have it on good authority* that, back in June, Pat Robertson was told by the Islamic heavenly gatekeeper, Ridwan, to hit the bricks. (Because he did lower Christianity's repute in the western world, he was awarded 72 virgin... goats.)

*me, but I am good.

HeeHee, you da man.....I bow to the master.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

How would you categorize me seeing that I have sound reasoning to refute arguments for the existence of any God, yet it seems that I never completely shook my religious indoctrination? Am I a theist with atheistic leanings?

Sounds like you're an agnostic theist maybe.

An agnostic theist is a person who does not claim to know God exists but still believes a God exists. That's fairly close but I'd say I believe a God might exist although the probability is miniscule.

But then if the theism is considered as indoctrination by you, instead of your reasoned stance, then maybe you're an atheist with theist leanings? You gotta sort that out yourself.

Not really to both. I just wonder how common theism is in atheists.

Atheism and theism are a binary.

The advantage of that view is its simplicity, but I don't think it applies to real people and their beliefs.

But when you dig down into sub-categories, it complexifies. There are a few different sorts of atheism. There are several kinds of theism.

I think there may also be hybrid categories--mixtures of atheism and theism. For example, many atheists point out that most theists don't believe in all gods. So a Christian, for example, is an atheist in regard to Osiris but a theist in regard to Yahweh. So a self-described atheist might disbelieve in the Gods of religion yet still believe in a god of her own.

Then there's the gnostic/agnostic scale. This isn't a third option to atheism/theism. It's the grading of how much certainty is felt about one's theism or atheism.

Agnosticism is an absence of knowledge of God while atheism is understood as an absence of belief in God.

Sort your thoughts and feelings and keep in mind it doesn't have to be dead certainty either way. There's no other reasonable response to indoctrination than to work on shaking it off. But then the result doesn't have to be 'militant atheism'.

Why would I want to shake off theism? For the most part if I have any theism, then it does no harm.

I think some theists feel repulsed by the atheists they see on the net...

Heck, I'm repulsed by many of them seeing them as bad or worse than theists.

...and think "well, that's ugly so I'll stick with my theism".

I think we need a more logical and factual atheism. We could sure use that in this forum.

 

[bilby]

I think we need a more logical and factual atheism. We could sure use that in this forum.

If you're not a part of the solution, then you're a part of the problem.

 

[steve_bank]

I think we need a more logical and factual atheism. We could sure use that in this forum.

Soldier has to be some kind of theist to say that. The onus is on the claimant in this case theist existence of god to provide the proof.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I'm an atheist. I don't "believe" in gods. I have a definition for the term, and either people satisfy it or they don't. That's not belief, that's observational knowledge.

I also don't believe in "a god of this universe". I have observational knowledge that it is possible, but that is not a belief OR certain knowledge of a positive existence. It is certain knowledge of a possibility.

Atheists don't need to believe there are exactly zero gods, or that gods do not exist, but merely need to lack positive belief in a "THE God(s)"

 

[TomC]

I'm such a hard agnostic I may as well be an atheist. We don't, and probably cannot, understand anything important about The Original Source. That doesn't mean that there's nothing besides the material world we are capable of investigating.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But when you dig down into sub-categories, it complexifies. There are a few different sorts of atheism. There are several kinds of theism.

I think there may also be hybrid categories--mixtures of atheism and theism. For example, many atheists point out that most theists don't believe in all gods. So a Christian, for example, is an atheist in regard to Osiris but a theist in regard to Yahweh. So a self-described atheist might disbelieve in the Gods of religion yet still believe in a god of her own.

You seemed to comment on this without actually reading the post. The scale is based on certainty, not whether they have materialistic or other types of "gods". And the certainty is based on the question asked.

Are any of the gods worshipped or have been worshipped real?
Almost certainly no.

Is there a creator of the universe?
Indeterminate, however, regarding the issue of origins, a creator simply pushes ultimate origins back one step, it doesn't solve it, nothing actually solves that.

What is the reduction of worldly things that were explained by being the province of god, that still exist today?
This is a sub-question to the creator one, as it shows the erosion of the need for a supernatural deity to explain why things happen.

...and think "well, that's ugly so I'll stick with my theism".

I think we need a more logical and factual atheism. We could sure use that in this forum.

What is "true atheism"? There is no "true atheism", it is nothing but a needless label. Some people are obsessed with labels while at the same time, caring not a wit about the underlying beliefs of the individual. You want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[crazyfingers]

I don't believe in any gods just as I don't believe that there are giant whale like creatures living in the middle atmosphere of Jupiter.

I think that it's possible that somewhere in the universe there could be highly advanced beings that to us may appear to have god-like powers just as my cat probably thinks that I have god-like powers since I can get yummy food out of a can. But where there is one highly advanced being there will be millions of the same species so I doubt that counts. Besides, I am not saying that I believe in them. Just saying that it's possible that highly advanced beings may exist.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So, I'm an atheist. I don't "believe" in gods. I have a definition for the term, and either people satisfy it or they don't. That's not belief, that's observational knowledge.

Your "observational knowledge" rests on seeing if people fit your definition of "atheist." How can you observe what people believe?

I also don't believe in "a god of this universe". I have observational knowledge that it is possible, but that is not a belief OR certain knowledge of a positive existence. It is certain knowledge of a possibility.

If you don't believe in a universal God, then you still might believe in some other God.

Atheists don't need to believe there are exactly zero gods, or that gods do not exist, but merely need to lack positive belief in a "THE God(s)"

That's your own definition. Aside from assertions to the contrary, how can we know that some people don't believe in any Gods?