Atheist vs Theist

[abaddon]

I guess the many atheists saying (in numerous various phrasings) "you haven't met the burden of proof" are invisible to this person.

 

[Politesse]

I guess the many atheists saying (in numerous various phrasings) "you haven't met the burden of proof" are invisible to this person.

Argument noted.

 

[Atheos]

As others have stated in this thread, being an atheist says absolutely nothing about what one believes. It only states to what one doesn't believe.

As hard as it is for a believer to understand, it's not that I don't "Believe in God."

It's that I have never seen any god-myth among the thousands of which I am aware that is convincing.

Let me say that again in a different way: Whether it's Yahweh, Shiva, Pan-Gu, Vishnu, Zeus, Baal, Ra, Xenu or Ramtha, I don't believe it exists. This is because I've never seen any evidence or argument that stands up to scrutiny that gives me reason to believe one is different from the rest or that any of them have ever or do at this present time exist.

Yes, I know that untold millions believe or have believed in each of these. It was also once almost universally believed that the sun was much smaller than the earth and moved through the sky. People (even the vast majority of people) can believe things even if they are completely wrong.

I'm as sure that there are no gods as I am that there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Vampires, Leprechauns, Werewolves, Gnomes, Trolls, Ogres, Orcs, Fire-breathing dragons, Broomstick-riding witches and thousands of other fantasy creatures that have been concocted by the fertile imagination of mankind over the millennia.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As others have stated in this thread, being an atheist says absolutely nothing about what one believes. It only states to what one doesn't believe.

As hard as it is for a believer to understand, it's not that I don't "Believe in God."

It's that I have never seen any god-myth among the thousands of which I am aware that is convincing.

Let me say that again in a different way: Whether it's Yahweh, Shiva, Pan-Gu, Vishnu, Zeus, Baal, Ra, Xenu or Ramtha, I don't believe it exists. This is because I've never seen any evidence or argument that stands up to scrutiny that gives me reason to believe one is different from the rest or that any of them have ever or do at this present time exist.

Yes, I know that untold millions believe or have believed in each of these. It was also once almost universally believed that the sun was much smaller than the earth and moved through the sky. People (even the vast majority of people) can believe things even if they are completely wrong.

I'm as sure that there are no gods as I am that there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Vampires, Leprechauns, Werewolves, Gnomes, Trolls, Ogres, Orcs, Fire-breathing dragons, Broomstick-riding witches and thousands of other fantasy creatures that have been concocted by the fertile imagination of mankind over the millennia.

Exactly. A Christian is also an atheist. They're Odin atheists. Or Vishnu atheists.

The terminology is just wildly out of date.

 

[abaddon]

Exactly. A Christian is also an atheist. They're Odin atheists. Or Vishnu atheists.

The terminology is just wildly out of date.

For some theists, the gods of other religions are incomplete images of God. And this has been Lion IRC's argument, presented several times.

In the protestant sect I attended, the other gods were demons leading humanity astray.

So trying to find the common ground and saying "see, you're like me to this extent at least" is a strategy that can blow up in one's face. If there are theists who disbelieve the other gods, it's not likely for being skeptics, it's not likely for thinking the concept is flawed or the evidence is lacking.

They don't lack belief in gods or disbelieve gods, because they believe in one, so no theist is an atheist.

What, then, is a Christian in regards to Odin? I don't know. I think I'd ask the theist, rather than announce at him what he does and doesn't believe the way they tend to do with atheists.

 

[atrib]

Atheism is simply an absence of belief/conviction in the existence of a God or gods based on the absence of evidence to support such a conviction. That's all.

An absurd definition if you look at how people actually - ever - use the term.

How do people actually use the term? I am an atheist, and that is always how I have defined the term.

Atheists I know in real life, and many of my friends are atheists, are content to leave it at that. They lack belief in gods, and that is where it ends. Other than the ability to sleep in on Sundays, it doesn't have much impact on their lives.

Some atheists, like Hitchins and Dawkins, are active in the media declaring their lack of belief, and talking about why they don't believe. But people like them are few and far between.

So are you going to tell us how you define the term?

 

[Politesse]

So are you going to tell us how you define the term?

Someone who rejects theism.

 

[skepticalbip]

So are you going to tell us how you define the term?

Someone who rejects theism.

Atheists would still be atheists (but wouldn't have the label) if there were no theists, only people who suggested "A really silly idea but what if there were some kind of intelligence responsible for this shit?". It is only the presence of theists that makes atheists even take the time to think about the matter and so to be labeled. As DBT said "Atheism is simply an absence of belief/conviction in the existence of a God or gods based on the absence of evidence to support such a conviction. That's all." This same reasoning would apply to people who have an absence of belief/conviction in any thing for which there is no reason to consider.

 

[Politesse]

So are you going to tell us how you define the term?

Someone who rejects theism.

Atheists would still be atheists (but wouldn't have the label) if there were no theists, only people who suggested "A really silly idea but what if there were some kind of intelligence responsible for this shit?". It is only the presence of theists that makes atheists even take the time to think about the matter and so to be labeled. As DBT said "Atheism is simply an absence of belief/conviction in the existence of a God or gods based on the absence of evidence to support such a conviction. That's all." This same reasoning would apply to people who have an absence of belief/conviction in any thing for which there is no reason to consider.

Those are not the same thing....

 

[skepticalbip]

Atheists would still be atheists (but wouldn't have the label) if there were no theists, only people who suggested "A really silly idea but what if there were some kind of intelligence responsible for this shit?". It is only the presence of theists that makes atheists even take the time to think about the matter and so to be labeled. As DBT said "Atheism is simply an absence of belief/conviction in the existence of a God or gods based on the absence of evidence to support such a conviction. That's all." This same reasoning would apply to people who have an absence of belief/conviction in any thing for which there is no reason to consider.

Those are not the same thing....

Only in your eyes because you want to pigeon hole atheists as actually giving a shit about the concept of a god. It isn't that concept that concerns me. It is the actions of those who deeply believe in a personal god that it is their righteous mission to dictate and control the thoughts and actions of others that concern me.

 

[Atheos]

There are many people who believe fortune tellers can predict the future using tea leaves. I reject this belief in exactly the same way (and in large part for many of the same reasons) I reject the various beliefs of those who believe one or more gods exist.

I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. Until the evidence for any god is better than the evidence for Santa Claus I will unapologetically remain skeptical.

To my knowledge the English language doesn't have a special word to denote someone who disbelieves in tea-leaf prognostication. The presence or absence of an English word that specifically refers to a position does not change the reality that the position exists, nor does it effect the validity of the position in any way. It is pointless to use language in an attempt to create some sort of semantic booby trap.

 

[Politesse]

Atheists would still be atheists (but wouldn't have the label) if there were no theists, only people who suggested "A really silly idea but what if there were some kind of intelligence responsible for this shit?". It is only the presence of theists that makes atheists even take the time to think about the matter and so to be labeled. As DBT said "Atheism is simply an absence of belief/conviction in the existence of a God or gods based on the absence of evidence to support such a conviction. That's all." This same reasoning would apply to people who have an absence of belief/conviction in any thing for which there is no reason to consider.

Those are not the same thing....

Only in your eyes because you want to pigeon hole atheists as actually giving a shit about the concept of a god. It isn't that concept that concerns me. It is the actions of those who deeply believe in a personal god that it is their righteous mission to dictate and control the thoughts and actions of others that concern me.

Again, that's a lot closer to my definition than the waffly internet-argument one.

 

[Wiploc]

Again, that's a lot closer to my definition than the waffly internet-argument one.

Many of us are consistent in our insistence that what we mean by the word "atheism" is not having the belief that that one or more gods exist.

If you think we're waffly, it's probably because you're talking to many people, some of whom don't agree. I agree that that can be frustrating, because I converse with Christians on the internet, and any time I reference some characteristic of Christianity, they're likely to say something like, "Oh, I don't believe that."

 

[DrZoidberg]

Exactly. A Christian is also an atheist. They're Odin atheists. Or Vishnu atheists.

The terminology is just wildly out of date.

For some theists, the gods of other religions are incomplete images of God. And this has been Lion IRC's argument, presented several times.

In the protestant sect I attended, the other gods were demons leading humanity astray.

So trying to find the common ground and saying "see, you're like me to this extent at least" is a strategy that can blow up in one's face. If there are theists who disbelieve the other gods, it's not likely for being skeptics, it's not likely for thinking the concept is flawed or the evidence is lacking.

They don't lack belief in gods or disbelieve gods, because they believe in one, so no theist is an atheist.

What, then, is a Christian in regards to Odin? I don't know. I think I'd ask the theist, rather than announce at him what he does and doesn't believe the way they tend to do with atheists.

Actually, up until the Enlightenment Christians would call other Christians who belonged to another sect atheists. Just believing, ever so slightly in the wrong thing was atheism. I think that meaning is still in effect.

And when have ever religious people respected how words work? They'll cling to any nonsense phrase if it'll massage their ego. Excuse me if I don't treat Lion RC as a great authority on how words work

 

[Politesse]

Actually, up until the Enlightenment Christians would call other Christians who belonged to another sect atheists.

The Romans used to call Christians themselves atheists. In antiquity, its sense was closer to that of the modern term "godless".

 

[DrZoidberg]

Actually, up until the Enlightenment Christians would call other Christians who belonged to another sect atheists.

The Romans used to call Christians themselves atheists. In antiquity, its sense was closer to that of the modern term "godless".

Well... it is literally what it means. Remember that Christianity changed the meaning of what it meant to be religious. The concept of "having faith" would make no sense to the pagans. Because religion wasn't about beliefs. For them religion is something you did rather than believe in. For Romans you weren't unfaithful to your main god if you also sacrificed to another god. That whole concept is specific to Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Rich people would sacrifice to gods that weren't that important to them because... why not? They were still rich. Very little to lose.

If you never sacrificed to any god you weren't backed up be a god. Hence godless.

 

[Politesse]

Actually, up until the Enlightenment Christians would call other Christians who belonged to another sect atheists.

The Romans used to call Christians themselves atheists. In antiquity, its sense was closer to that of the modern term "godless".

Well... it is literally what it means. Remember that Christianity changed the meaning of what it meant to be religious. The concept of "having faith" would make no sense to the pagans. Because religion wasn't about beliefs. For them religion is something you did rather than believe in. For Romans you weren't unfaithful to your main god if you also sacrificed to another god. That whole concept is specific to Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Rich people would sacrifice to gods that weren't that important to them because... why not? They were still rich. Very little to lose.

Also quite true! The term religion has changed greatly from antiquity.

Fidelity to a god you had bound yourself to in oaths was important though; or been bound to involuntary as member of a family, deme, city, etc. The civic and family rites were obligatory for all but the most upper classes, and even they were "supposed" to give the occasional nod to piety. The Christians weren't in hot water for lack of faith, but for failure of civic responsibility that might have led to the deaths of everyone involved from plague or warfare. One reason why most people were very quick to convert after Milvian Bridge. Their horse was suddenly in another stable.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, that's the atheist delusion: thinking that your philosophy is somehow not a philosophy and therefore somehow exempt from the usual consideration a skeptic would apply to a claim.

Does that mean that my not collecting stamps is in fact a hobby, and not exempt from the usual considerations a hobbyist would claim?

Or would it only apply if I claimed there were no stamps?

Or would it only apply if I stated there are no invisible stamps and no invisible stamp creators?

Or do you think possibly that religion is basically a bipolar hangover? The brain gets taken over by its emotional center and the front part of the brain, the part that has developed most rapidly in recent human evolution, is not large enough to control emotional impulse.

Or do religious brains simply perceive stimuli differently, such as the inability for bipolar brains to perceive facial expression accurately?

There must be something fundamental working in a modern human brain that thinks magic is real. I can certainly understand how religious behavior evolved considering the development of the modern human brain, and hold that humans of the distant past were all bipolar because they were all predominantly controlled by their emotional impulses.

 

[Politesse]

Well, that's the atheist delusion: thinking that your philosophy is somehow not a philosophy and therefore somehow exempt from the usual consideration a skeptic would apply to a claim.

Does that mean that my not collecting stamps is in fact a hobby, and not exempt from the usual considerations a hobbyist would claim?

Or would it only apply if I claimed there were no stamps?

Or would it only apply if I stated there are no invisible stamps and no invisible stamp creators?

Or do you think possibly that religion is basically a bipolar hangover? The brain gets taken over by its emotional center and the front part of the brain, the part that has developed most rapidly in recent human evolution, is not large enough to control emotional impulse.

Or do religious brains simply perceive stimuli differently, such as the inability for bipolar brains to perceive facial expression accurately?

There must be something fundamental working in a modern human brain that thinks magic is real. I can certainly understand how religious behavior evolved considering the development of the modern human brain, and hold that humans of the distant past were all bipolar because they were all predominantly controlled by their emotional impulses.

If you invest a large portion of your social identity in the idea of refusing to collect stamps, then yeah, there's probably something to explore there. Especially if your reasoning for not doing so involves the non-existence of stamps, a rather bold claim all things considered.

I am not remotely convinced that there is a "religious brain" and a "not-religious brain", nor that if that is the case, it is reasonable to describe the most normal brain state as the "malfunction". To some extent, any belief or perception, whether or religious topics or non-religious could be described as a product of a brain state, and no, those shouldn't be trusted implicitly as a guide to the empirically true.

 

[abaddon]

NM