The Rational Atheist

[Unknown Soldier]

We all know that some atheists can be as irrational as any theist. I think that one of the reasons for this irrational thinking on the part of both atheists and theists is the reliance on belief or the lack of belief as the basis for their respective points of view. None of us as far as I know can choose to believe or not believe in truth claims that we become acquainted with. Belief comes and goes with the passage of time in unpredictable ways as we experience strong emotions. So relying on belief to describe one's view of God's existence is a rather vague and unstable basis for one's thinking.

So I at least have decided to describe myself as an atheist not as merely a person who lacks belief in Gods but as a man who has good reasons to be skeptical about the objective existence of any Gods. Although reasons to doubt that Gods exist beyond the imagination are legion, one argument in particular I think is particularly compelling:

A real God would have knowledge and power that no man or woman could possibly have while an imaginary God would have nothing more than what the crafty men who created him have. So when we investigate the Gods including Yahweh and Jesus, what knowledge and power do we see? I've never seen anything more than what people have, and in some cases much less. Logically then, I conclude that no God exists except in the pages of myth and in the minds of lonely and struggling people. I am an atheist for that reason.

See how much more compelling that is than the weak: I'm an atheist because I lack belief in Gods? A definition like that makes you sound like you're afraid to prove it.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Welcome to about 500 years ago.

 

[bilby]

Today in Unknown Soldier doesn't understand the difference between a reason and a definition...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm an atheist...

Identification.

...because I lack belief in Gods

Reason.

 

[abaddon]

"I lack belief in Gods" isn't a reason to be an atheist, it's the consequence of the reasons to be an atheist.

The OP mistook a highly general description of atheism as a reason for atheism. It results in circularity: "I'm an atheist because I lack belief in Gods" is like saying "I am an unbeliever in x because I don't have a belief in x".

The definition has to name the common denominator -- disbelief in gods. Or "lack of belief" for those who prefer that. It can't name all the various reasons of the various individual persons, anymore than the definition of "apple" is going to include all the varieties of apples.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"I lack belief in Gods" isn't a reason to be an atheist, it's the consequence of the reasons to be an atheist.

Some people for various reasons obviously do lose some of their belief in Gods or at least feel they've lost some of their belief in Gods. The amount of loss can vary over time and from one person to another. So I think my understanding of atheism--that it should be defined as based on what a person logically concludes about the existence of Gods--is a superior understanding.

The OP mistook a highly general description of atheism as a reason for atheism.

You should clarify what that "highly general description of atheism" is. Also, I'm not sure what "reason for atheism" you're referring to. It's best to post direct quotations from the material you're referring to so we know what you're talking about.

It results in circularity: "I'm an atheist because I lack belief in Gods" is like saying "I am an unbeliever in x because I don't have a belief in x".

Are you getting that out of the OP? My purpose in starting this thread isn't to discuss what causes people to be atheists but what a good understanding of what atheism is.

The definition has to name the common denominator -- disbelief in gods. Or "lack of belief" for those who prefer that. It can't name all the various reasons of the various individual persons, anymore than the definition of "apple" is going to include all the varieties of apples.

I'm proposing that we change the "common denominator" of what an atheist is to what a person thinks about God's existence rather than what they feel or believe about God's existence.

Let me close with an illustration. Say a person is about to ride a roller coaster. She's ridden it before and was never harmed because it did not allow her to fall. She also knows the coaster has an excellent record for safety. She logically concludes she will be fine riding that roller coaster. Nevertheless, her ride causes a great adrenaline rush as she experiences sensations of falling.

So what do you call this woman? She clearly knows using reason that she won't fall when riding the roller coaster. But do you label her a "roller coaster danger believer" because she still fears falling when riding it? I think it's far more descriptive to see her as a person who knows the coaster is safe. In the same way any beliefs in God a person has or doesn't have I think are irrelevant to a person being an atheist.

 

[bilby]

Some people for various reasons obviously do lose some of their belief in Gods or at least feel they've lost some of their belief in Gods.

Some people never had any to lose.

 

[laughing dog]

My purpose in starting this thread isn't to discuss what causes people to be atheists but what a good understanding of what atheism is.

Atheism is well understood as disbelief/denial in the existence of god(s). What is confusing to you?

 

[abaddon]

So I at least have decided to describe myself as an atheist not as merely a person who lacks belief in Gods but as a man who has good reasons to be skeptical about the objective existence of any Gods.

But isn't this how it already is? Atheists do not "merely lack belief in Gods". The "lack of belief" or disbelief follows upon having thought about it and decided it's not worth investing belief into.

I'm proposing that we change the "common denominator" of what an atheist is to what a person thinks about God's existence rather than what they feel or believe about God's existence.

This strikes me as a bizarre and needless distinction. But I wonder what becomes the common denominator when we focus on what "a person" thinks about God's existence, instead of feel or believe about it? (Whatever that distinction is).

The thinking that I put into it is MINE. Your thinking is YOURS. Other atheists think THEIR thoughts about it. What's the common denominator if you drop that they all disbelieve gods, and focus instead on what "a person" thinks about EoG?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I've only met one non-atheist my whole life. He used to post on the old IIDB under the name Orange Juice (I think...something like that. I can look it up if anyone wants to read his posts.)

Anyway, he believed that every god humans ever invented became real when someone truly believed in them.

Everyone else on the planet is an atheist with respect to at least one, and usually several thousand, gods. Most people who identify as atheist just believe in one (or several thousand) less than them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you getting that out of the OP? My purpose in starting this thread isn't to discuss what causes people to be atheists but what a good understanding of what atheism is.

Atheism is one option of a somewhat binary standing. You want to shove a bunch of stuff into the term "atheism" that doesn't belong. Atheists can have their beliefs stemming from a number of different paths. The logic behind their reasoning can be sound or not sound at all. An Atheist has no obligation to be rational.

 

[Thomas II]

"At least 18,000 different gods, goddesses and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans. Spirituality, or religiosity, has been mapped to a brain circuit that was centered on a brain region called the periaqueductal grey."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...nt gods,region called the periaqueductal grey.

 

[bilby]

At least 18,000 different gods, goddesses and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans

So, by some very simple arithmetic, any monotheist is at least 99.994% atheist.

 

[TomC]

Atheism is one option of a somewhat binary standing. You want to shove a bunch of stuff into the term "atheism" that doesn't belong. Atheists can have their beliefs stemming from a number of different paths. The logic behind their reasoning can be sound or not sound at all. An Atheist has no obligation to be rational.

A big problem here is that so many of the words have common, simplistic, usages that don't completely cover the broad range of people's views. Other similar words are religion, god, and faith. People might have different meanings depending on context.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We know no more about a person's beliefs in their saying they are a theist verses than when they say they are an atheist, other than their stance on whether they believe in god(s). It is merely a label.

Want to know anymore about the theist or atheist, gonna need to talk to them. Not enough labels around to label it all.

 

[TomC]

We know no more about a person's beliefs in their saying they are a theist verses than when they say they are an atheist, other than their stance on whether they believe in god(s). It is merely a label.

Want to know anymore about the theist or atheist, gonna need to talk to them. Not enough labels around to label it all.

I once had a minor altercation with a forum member. I think it was IIDB, although it was ~20 years ago.

I put "atheist" as my basic belief, because it was simple. I do think that there's more to reality than the material, but I'm confident that religion is fiction. They told me I was dishonest for labeling myself atheist. That, being nothing like a hard atheist, I was lying.
A bit of hilarity ensued.

I think I changed it to "non-theist", although I don't remember it much. But, yeah, hard atheists can be quite as annoyingly self righteous as devout religionists.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

A real God would have knowledge and power that no man or woman could possibly have while an imaginary God would have nothing more than what the crafty men who created him have. So when we investigate the Gods including Yahweh and Jesus, what knowledge and power do we see?

Nothing. They don't exist.

I've never seen anything more than what people have, ...

Wait, what? You investigated Odin, Allah, Brahma and actually found data? and that data was equivalent to people?

There appears to be some semantics here. When you "investigated," you mean you read some literary works? If you read literary works, then you would see that Odin knows the future and Allah is omnipotent. Those are both beyond human but they are fictions.

If you mean something other than fictional works, then you will have to explain yourself.

 

[Thomas II]

At least 18,000 different gods, goddesses and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans

So, by some very simple arithmetic, any monotheist is at least 99.994% atheist.

The Placebo Effect and God May Live in the Same Brain Region! ​

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ect-and-god-may-live-in-the-same-brain-region

 

[Unknown Soldier]

A real God would have knowledge and power that no man or woman could possibly have while an imaginary God would have nothing more than what the crafty men who created him have. So when we investigate the Gods including Yahweh and Jesus, what knowledge and power do we see?

Nothing. They don't exist.

We do see something with these presumed Gods. On the upside we are taught to abstain from some kinds of vice like theft and adultery, and on the downside we are commanded to go to war when our leaders command us to. We are also taught some scientific errors. All of this is what we would expect from Gods if men created them.

I've never seen anything more than what people have, ...

Wait, what? You investigated Odin, Allah, Brahma and actually found data? and that data was equivalent to people?

What we are told about such Gods is what men could have made up.

There appears to be some semantics here. When you "investigated," you mean you read some literary works?

I've read the Bible and the myths of some other cultures--stories about the Gods of the world.

You seem to be unaware that reading is most often an integral part of any investigation.

If you read literary works, then you would see that Odin knows the future and Allah is omnipotent. Those are both beyond human but they are fictions.

I'm afraid that such claims about Gods can be made by any person who is willing to lie. So those claims are hardly beyond human. It appears that you are confusing actual clairvoyance and omnipotence with claims about them. I can make up an impotent God and say it is omnipotent.

If you mean something other than fictional works, then you will have to explain yourself.

I hope you get it now. It's odd that you don't seem to understand that people make things up.

 

[lostone]

We all know that some atheists can be as irrational as any theist. I think that one of the reasons for this irrational thinking on the part of both atheists and theists is the reliance on belief or the lack of belief as the basis for their respective points of view. None of us as far as I know can choose to believe or not believe in truth claims that we become acquainted with. Belief comes and goes with the passage of time in unpredictable ways as we experience strong emotions. So relying on belief to describe one's view of God's existence is a rather vague and unstable basis for one's thinking.

So I at least have decided to describe myself as an atheist not as merely a person who lacks belief in Gods but as a man who has good reasons to be skeptical about the objective existence of any Gods. Although reasons to doubt that Gods exist beyond the imagination are legion, one argument in particular I think is particularly compelling:

A real God would have knowledge and power that no man or woman could possibly have while an imaginary God would have nothing more than what the crafty men who created him have. So when we investigate the Gods including Yahweh and Jesus, what knowledge and power do we see? I've never seen anything more than what people have, and in some cases much less. Logically then, I conclude that no God exists except in the pages of myth and in the minds of lonely and struggling people. I am an atheist for that reason.

See how much more compelling that is than the weak: I'm an atheist because I lack belief in Gods? A definition like that makes you sound like you're afraid to prove it.

IMO, there is no proof that will satisfy everyone, or even most people. We observe the universe we live in, and we decide what we think of as likely. If you don't have many doubts, you are deceiving yourself.

OTOH, my cat is blocking this screen and making it difficult to post this. I have seen God, and He has has orange fur.