Are there any "true" atheists?

[Rhea]

OK. Then I'm left wondering why self-declarations about beliefs in Gods and Goddesses are so surely true while other things people say are not so credible. I do see how your making that distinction helps your argument seeing that your word on your not believing in a God is all the evidence you have. It's common in rhetoric to make assertions if confirming evidence is lacking. I've seen Christian apologists make such assertions when they lack evidence for their claims.

Oh, that’s easy and it’s been mentioned already.

Because a BELIEF inherently has little to no evidence. It’s an OPINION. So when someone tells you that is their belief, then their opinion on the matter is likely the best possible evidence available. Add that to this forum where there is nothing to be gained by lying about it.

Your assertion is that you know MORE than the person describing their own beliefs, and that’s just so un-useful as to be laughable.


Many of the people who post here have posted lengthy and thoughtful stories over the years about their interaction with theists, theism and religion. This includes their behaviors, reactions, studied self-analysis and emotions. The evidence of their stories aggregates to a collection of evidence that, through consilience and consistency, makes for a significantly more compelling evidence than some new guy denigrating us all and calling us deluded.


In short; you have established yourself as a poor witness of our beliefs, and there are better witnesses available.

 

[Rhea]

I believe in Gods and Goddesses! Guess what? I really don't. So I just disproved what you say here.

You said earlier in the thread that you did. So this is consistent with your earlier post. It’s your entire premise - that you harbor a deep-seated theism that you can’t shake. I believe you.

 

[Rhea]

Why does the existence of True Atheists give you such fear and panic?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The "brain damage" thingie is kinda interesting. Santa Claus belief among tens of millions of children isn't evidence of brain damage. Those kids brains all mature, they develop rational cognitive abilities and they all stop thinking Santa is real.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are there any True Atheists? Yes.

• Are there ETs abducting people? Yes.
• Are there bipedal apes walking about the Pacific Northwest and the Himalayas? Yes.
• Is cold fusion real? Yes.
• Does the position of the planets on our birthdays determine what we will turn out to be? Yes.
• Is there critical thinking at IIDB? Yes.

That last one at least can be demonstrated to be partly true.

Are those items things that we search for internally in our minds and make statements of facts about strictly about our minds and expect acceptance as personal analysis of what our opinions are in our minds? No, they're not.

It's like if I do some sort of psychology experiment with 10 individuals and I ask each one to picture Abraham Lincoln in their minds and then I ask each one if in their picture he was clean-shaven or had a beard. 2 individuals might say he was clean-shaven and another 7 might say he had a beard. 1 might say not sure. I'd write it down as those are the observed facts. I might even discuss and ask if they are sure. Once. Or twice if I had a logical reason. Then, that's it.

It would be inappropriate, rude, and illegal to hold all of the individuals hostage for 48 days in the psychology experiment room, telling them over and over that each one of them is not sure about the image they had because in the past they've seen pictures of Abraham Lincoln with no beard and with a beard. Therefore, cognitive dissonance makes them simultaneously imagine he has both in their mental image. Because SCIENCE!!!1111!!11 It would also be idiocy and the misapplication of scientific principles and ideas, putting the cart before the horse. And it would be illogical, for another reason, as some particular individuals may tell you that they've never seen a photo of Lincoln or one where he is clean-shaven.

Now, if the context of the psychology experiment were instead religious in the sense that a religious conclusion had already been reached and then shoved down the throats of participants for 48 days contrary to evidence gathered, then that'd be worse than just preaching.

 

[abaddon]

When I say "I am an atheist" I mean I have not been convinced to be a theist. It's not a description of my being nor my beliefs.

Instead it's a very general social comparison. A theist says "I am a theist". An atheist says "I'm not". There, at this extremely superficial point of the exchange, they each have the vaguest inkling of what their differing "worldviews" MIGHT be. So now, if they want to, they can START a deeper give-and-take convo about that. The labels "theist" and atheist" are nothing but the most superficial comparison. Want to talk about your deeper thoughts with others? Then waste no time on the labels.

Labels are like a small sticker on a package. They're not the contents and not a description of the contents.

 

[Whateverman]

You know that I’m a true atheist because I told you I was.
Anything different than that is you trying to assert that I’m not.

First time poster - thanks (to the forum-powers-that-be) for a speedy registration & approval.

At the risk of violating rules or etiquette I'm not yet familiar with, I created an account here to point out that Unknown Soldier took your quote from the above exchange to CARM, and used it to argue that IIDB atheists are a fanatical death cult.

- An Atheistic Death Cult

Has anybody here visited the Internet Infidel (IIDB) discussion boards? I've had some bizarre experiences there. As far as I know almost all of the members there are atheists, but they act like a fanatical religious cult. For example, just recently a member of their staff told me that if she...

forums.carm.org

Rather than just tattling, I was surprised that his arguments simply didn't stand up to basic scrutiny, and thought to see what it was all about. I've known about IIDB for a while, and his silly thread (over there) made me decide to join y'all and meet a new crowd of people.

This post has been copied and split to a thread in ~E regarding the taking of IIDB conversations to another site.
Go HERE to continue that conversation

 

[Unknown Soldier]

OK. Then I'm left wondering why self-declarations about beliefs in Gods and Goddesses are so surely true while other things people say are not so credible. I do see how your making that distinction helps your argument seeing that your word on your not believing in a God is all the evidence you have. It's common in rhetoric to make assertions if confirming evidence is lacking. I've seen Christian apologists make such assertions when they lack evidence for their claims.

Oh, that’s easy and it’s been mentioned already.

Because a BELIEF inherently has little to no evidence. It’s an OPINION. So when someone tells you that is their belief, then their opinion on the matter is likely the best possible evidence available.

Actually, people lie about their feelings all the time. Either that or they are simply unaware of feelings they have that others can see.

Add that to this forum where there is nothing to be gained by lying about it.

But at least one person in this forum lied to me and admitted it later. Others here mocked me for believing him. So if those others here think it is foolish to believe what's posted here, then who am I to disagree with them?

Your assertion is that you know MORE than the person describing their own beliefs, and that’s just so un-useful as to be laughable.

Why can't I know more about a person's beliefs than that person does? I've known many people who seem oblivious to their own attitudes.

Many of the people who post here have posted lengthy and thoughtful stories over the years about their interaction with theists, theism and religion. This includes their behaviors, reactions, studied self-analysis and emotions. The evidence of their stories aggregates to a collection of evidence that, through consilience and consistency, makes for a significantly more compelling evidence than some new guy denigrating us all and calling us deluded.

I'd prefer a peer reviewed study about the psychology of atheism over what anonymous people in an online forum have to say. I might be some "new guy," but that's to my advantage because I resist the group think in this forum.

In short; you have established yourself as a poor witness of our beliefs, and there are better witnesses available.

I didn't know I was a "witness" whatever that might mean. I see myself as a truth seeker, and my only agenda is science, truth, reason, and social equity.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I believe in Gods and Goddesses! Guess what? I really don't. So I just disproved what you say here.

You said earlier in the thread that you did. So this is consistent with your earlier post. It’s your entire premise - that you harbor a deep-seated theism that you can’t shake. I believe you.

You'll need to post some direct quotations of mine that you're referring to. I will defend what I've said, but I won't defend what you've said I've said.

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't know I was a "witness" whatever that might mean. I see myself as a truth seeker, and my only agenda is science, truth, reason, and social equity.

No it isn’t unless you have a different understanding of what “science”? reason” or “ truth”is.

In this thread you have presented no evidence that atheists believe in “god”. Science requires evidence. So either you don’t understand what science as the rest of the world does or it isn’t really on your agenda.

A person who says they are an atheist who believes in a god is not an atheist by definition. It is illogical (I.e. unreason) to claim they are an atheist. So either you don’t understand reason as the rest of the world does or it really is not on your agenda.

Finally a number of posters who say they are atheists and that they do not believe in any god. You questioning their claim is not based on evidence or reason. Your dismissal of their assertion indicates an unwillingness to accept the veracity (truth) of their assertion. Either you don’t understand truth as the rest of the world does or it is not on your agenda.

IMO, in each instance it is the latter.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Thread now unlocked after mods split conversations about suicide and miscaracterizaions on another board.

This thread is about True Atheism.

Discussion of US taking parts of this discussion to CARM is split to here

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Back to the OP, yes.

 

[Tiburon]

Unless you define "true" atheism as an outright denial of the possibility of a God(Gods) then I'd say there are plenty of true atheists.
Not outright dismissing the possibility that there could be a God doesn't make someone not a "true" atheist.
If you don't hold a belief in a God then you are an atheist.

 

[Gospel]

Unless you define "true" atheism as an outright denial of the possibility of a God(Gods) then I'd say there are plenty of true atheists.
Not outright dismissing the possibility that there could be a God doesn't make someone not a "true" atheist.
If you don't hold a belief in a God then you are an atheist.

How does agnosticism factor into your argument? As an agnostic, I contend that gods as defined by humans aren't real. However, I'm open to the idea that a fundamental singularity might underlie existence, which some might interpret as a god. I've always perceived the spectrum as Atheist - Agnostic - Theist.

 

[TomC]

I've always perceived the spectrum as Atheist - Agnostic - Theist.

I agree with your post, generally.

But I don't see agnosticism as a halfway point between atheism and theism. It's quite different. It's not about god or the supernatural. It's about humans.

To me, hard agnosticism is simply recognising that humans are far too limited to understand a concept like God. Religion is about people who think they're smart enough to understand God. Understand God well enough to tell me what to believe and do. Atheists don't do that so I don't care much about what they believe about god and the supernatural and stuff.
Why would I?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I align with the OP's view on the intricacy of human beliefs, however I posit that while some atheists/theists might occasionally ponder the existence or non-existence of God(s), others remain unwavering in their convictions. Such variations underscore the multifaceted nature of our beliefs.

 

[TomC]

Actually, people lie about their feelings all the time.

CARM administrative announcement from years ago:
"Unbelievers are not allowed to debate on the theology boards. Unbelievers, atheists, agnostics are limited to posting on the secular boards only, per CARM rules."

Has the OP been honest with them?

Just asking questions.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Unless you define "true" atheism as an outright denial of the possibility of a God(Gods) then I'd say there are plenty of true atheists.
Not outright dismissing the possibility that there could be a God doesn't make someone not a "true" atheist.
If you don't hold a belief in a God then you are an atheist.

How does agnosticism factor into your argument? As an agnostic, I contend that gods as defined by humans aren't real. However, I'm open to the idea that a fundamental singularity might underlie existence, which some might interpret as a god. I've always perceived the spectrum as Atheist - Agnostic - Theist.

Gnostic-Agnostic is orthogonal to Theist-Atheist.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between Theist and Atheist, any more than West is a middle ground between North and South.

 

[James Brown]

I agree with bilby.

For me, Gnosticism and Agnosticism are about knowledge of the supernatural in general or God in particular.

Theism and Atheism are about belief in both topics.

One can believe in something without knowing if it's true (like if there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.)

As for me, I don't know if God exists, but I don't believe it. Thus, I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.

The term “agnostic” does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.

The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, is an example of this position. He believed in god, but refused to ascribe positive attributes to this god on the basis that these attributes would introduce plurality into the divine nature—a procedure that would, Maimonides believed, lead to polytheism. According to the religious agnostic, we can state that god is, but— due to the unknowable nature of the supernatural—we cannot state what god is.

Like his theistic cousin, the agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgment one step further back. For the agnostic atheist, not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well. We cannot have knowledge of the unknowable; therefore, concludes this agnostic, we cannot have knowledge of god’s existence. Because this variety of agnostic does not subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist.

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unless you define "true" atheism as an outright denial of the possibility of a God(Gods) then I'd say there are plenty of true atheists.
Not outright dismissing the possibility that there could be a God doesn't make someone not a "true" atheist.
If you don't hold a belief in a God then you are an atheist.

How does agnosticism factor into your argument? As an agnostic, I contend that gods as defined by humans aren't real. However, I'm open to the idea that a fundamental singularity might underlie existence, which some might interpret as a god. I've always perceived the spectrum as Atheist - Agnostic - Theist.

People sometimes use the word agnostic as an in-between.

However, I think it is more about knowability or provability. So, to me, agnosticism can be a separate dimension than a belief/disbelief dichotomy. Picture the old political compass where you have authoritarianism vs libertarianism (social) on one axis and left vs right (economic) on the other. So by analogy you may have provability/knowability on one axis and belief on the other.