Trying To Understand Atheism

[1137]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

 

[Iti oj]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

Many atheists are also agnostic.
Me personally I don't believe in any gods and I don't believe any exist. I'm still open to being wrong but as it stands that's how I feel.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe.

The positions aren't the same.
To "not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist"
isn't much of a claim....it's about the lack of evidence leading to not believing
But to claim "there are no gods in the universe" is an unverifiable statement
that there are no gods. Essentially, it's weak v strong atheism.

 

[YmirGF]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

I think part of the problem is our primitive ideas about god(s). I am a strong atheist who thinks it is quite possible that there may be inhabitants of the universe we would consider to be "godlike", much in the same way that primitive tribes were in total awe at the arrival of visiting scientists or travelers with cameras and sound recorders, guns etc.... To quote Mulder, "I want to believe!" The problem is that there is no evidence on which to base the belief beyond whimsy and wishful thinking.

 

[Augustus]

For most atheists, I think the don't believe/believe don't difference is more grammatical than cognitive.

 

[McBell]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

Seems to me your problem is actually in not being able or willing to understand the atheist position.
I say this because of your insistence of "there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist" constriction.

I have not seen or heard anything that convinces me god exists.
And by god, I mean all the proposed gods that I have heard of.

Do you believe there is a pot of gold at the end of all rainbows?
Why not?

 

[LuisDantas]

If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely?

Most often, to keep a measure of peace in the family.

Technically there is also the matter that there are so many understandings of what a god would be, and that some of them are essentially impossible to disprove, notably Panteism's and Deism's.

And then there are the thorny cases. If someone says that, say, Elvis Presley is a God, how exactly do we decide that such is not the case? Who has the proper authority, and on what grounds?

Ultimately, it is a very arbitrary field, this of establishing what constitutes a god.

To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

It seems to me that not everyone takes the concept of god seriously enough to feel any particular need of choosing among those options. I know I don't.

 

[LuisDantas]

For most atheists, I think the don't believe/believe don't difference is more grammatical than cognitive.

May you elaborate?

 

[Valjean]

Not "logically identical."

Withholding belief till supporting evidence appears is reasonable. Declaring something an impossibility till evidence appears is not.

 

[Augustus]

May you elaborate?

If you are aware of the concept of gods then you hold a belief about their existence or not. Either they exist, you believe their existence is unknowable, you consider the concept is meaningless or that they don't exist (even if you accept that you might be wrong about this).

Are there any other possibilities you can think of?

I don't think it is cognitively possible to not believe anything, so those who say 'don't believe' still must fall into another category that reflects the actual belief that they do hold.

 

[Mindmaster]

Your mileage may vary, but rather often I find an atheist who openly admits they do not believe there is any reason to believe gods actually exist, but then refuses to accept the logically identical position that they believe there are no gods in the universe. I find this very strange. If an atheist sees no reason to believe in gods, why would they not believe the universe has no gods, or that this outcome is more likely? To me it always seemed like a burden of proof game, avoiding belief to avoid having to support your position. But am I missing a way where you can believe gods are unlikely but don't believe the universe is godless? I mean the only other option I can see besides neutrality or ignorance is that there is evidence for gods, so they likely exist.

The atheist and theist(in most cases) are playing the same game, a game of ignorance, either way. The theist chooses a book to base their opinion on, in most cases, and concludes all of the answers lie there. The atheist simply chooses a dogma of skepticism, materialism, and other scientific tidbits to fashion the same assumptions. The only thing that has happened between these two is they shifted what data represents suitable evidence. Neither are interested in learning a thing! They are not really interested in what is there but rather that their selection criterion are correct.

Some people, when faced with such dilemmas, play the safety square and state boldly: "I'm agnostic!" However, this person falls into the same trap; presuming things are just unknowable or cannot be known. Again, this person wants to be right because they are pretty sure those other two are wrong but can't put a finger on the why.

Any sort of statement made on these matters without a direct experience of them is merely presumption. For example, we have cultures who communicate with gods directly and have done so for all of their recorded time -- we can assume they're idiots, or find parallels between them and other cultures and at least agree that "something" has been happening. This sort of proof, btw, is not considered valid to science even though they use it themselves to prove that psychology or sociology exist.

You're basically putting the cart before the horse -- you can't intellectually discern something which violates all of the conditions of your rationality. It doesn't make sense, and it never will. But, it doesn't have to.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you are aware of the concept of gods then you hold a belief about their existence or not.

Not necessarily. Odds are that I will, but there is no certainty. The concept is just too arbitrary, too personal.

One may easily fail to see a need or even the means for having much of stance on the matter.

Either they exist, you believe their existence is unknowable, you consider the concept is meaningless or that they don't exist (even if you accept that you might be wrong about this).

A fair sample of the possible stances, but there are still others.

Are there any other possibilities you can think of?

Quite a few. For instance:

- I may find the concept inherently unrelated to matters of literal existence;

- I may not care enough to form an actual stance;

- I may switch stances all the time for any or no reason.

I don't think it is cognitively possible to not believe anything,

Oh, it is entirely possible to believe nothing about a given concept, particularly when that concept lacks clear meaning in the first place.

"God" is about as good a candidate for a lack of stance as they come, because the concept is so "freestyle", so reliant on an interpreter to lend it some actual meaning. Someone who is not interested would have to put some effort into shaping the concept into a functional form before a belief stance could begin to arise.

so those who say 'don't believe' still must fall into another category that reflects the actual belief that they do hold.

They often do - probably not quite as often as most people assume - but they most certainly do not need to.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There are lots of rumors (and photoshopped images) of melanistic "black" cougars and lions. So far, none have been documented to exist. While it's theoretically possible for black lions and black cougars to exist, because melanism exists in other felines, I'm not convinced any live in the wild or captivity. I'm not absolutely sure, but I do not believe it to be the case, and will only change my mind with some new evidence that heretofore hasn't been presented.

I am absolutely sure there are no true albino (adult) horses running around, because the gene which causes true albinism in horses is fatal, and any foals born with it will die in a couple days or less. I am convinced there are no wild or captive (adult) true albino horses.

See the difference?

 

[Augustus]

I may find the concept inherently unrelated to matters of literal existence;

- I may not care enough to form an actual stance;

- I may switch stances all the time for any or no reason.

1. I can accept that
2. Am not sure that this is cognitively possible as it assumes the Cartesian view that acceptance is distinct from comprehension which I disagree with.
3. Possibly

Oh, it is entirely possible to believe nothing about a given concept, particularly when that concept lacks clear meaning in the first place.

"God" is about as good a candidate for a lack of stance as they come, because the concept is so "freestyle", so reliant on an interpreter to lend it some actual meaning. Someone who is not interested would have to put some effort into shaping the concept into a functional form before a belief stance could begin to arise.

That would fit into the category of considering the word as being without (sufficient) meaning. Whether you consider it flawed logically or simply don't care enough to give it meaning this would apply.

They often do - probably not quite as often as most people assume - but they most certainly do not need to.

Perhaps we have a different view of human cognition, I just don't think you can have no view whatsoever on any given thing you are aware of with.

While there are other possibilities, I'd still say that for most atheists who claim it, don't believe/believe don't represents a grammatical difference rather than a cognitive one.

 

[Valjean]

If you are aware of the concept of gods then you hold a belief about their existence or not. Either they exist, you believe their existence is unknowable, you consider the concept is meaningless or that they don't exist (even if you accept that you might be wrong about this).

Are there any other possibilities you can think of?

You're aware of the concept but never really thought about it and haven't formed any opinions.
You've thought about it but haven't come across enough evidence to believe in God, so you defer belief pending further evidence.

I don't think it is cognitively possible to not believe anything, so those who say 'don't believe' still must fall into another category that reflects the actual belief that they do hold.

I'm assuming you mean not believing in God. I think there are many people who hold no beliefs about God either way.

The atheist and theist(in most cases) are playing the same game, a game of ignorance, either way. The theist chooses a book to base their opinion on, in most cases, and concludes all of the answers lie there. The atheist simply chooses a dogma of skepticism, materialism, and other scientific tidbits to fashion the same assumptions.

Not the same game. the theist has formed an opinion, most atheists have not. Atheists lack an opinion on the issue.

The only thing that has happened between these two is they shifted what data represents suitable evidence.

No. The atheism is not based on data or evidence. it is the logical lack of belief resulting from no data or evidence.

Any sort of statement made on these matters without a direct experience of them is merely presumption.

Exactly! -- which is why the atheists eschew any opinions or presumptions on these issues.

 

[Augustus]

You're aware of the concept but never really thought about it and haven't formed any opinions.
You've thought about it but haven't come across enough evidence to believe in God, so you defer belief pending further evidence.

As I've said, I consider this an impossibility on any issue (not just gods). Your view is the Cartesian one where acceptance is a subsequent act to comprehension; mine is the Spinozan one where they are inseparable.

imo, most atheists don't defer pending further evidence, they reject pending further evidence.

That's why I think it is a grammatical difference rather than a cognitive one.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are trying to build rigid categories that are based on a remarkably fluid, often self-contradictory concept.

The results are bound to be unreliable.

 

[Glaurung]

But to claim "there are no gods in the universe" is an unverifiable statement

And it is my view that this is what atheists actually believe but refuse to admit. I don't think the notion of implicit atheism is coherent, or even cognitively possible. If you can comment upon it, you have a position about it.

It's a word game to manipulate the argument. That's all this whole thing boils down to.

 

[Augustus]

You are trying to build rigid categories that are based on a remarkably fluid, often self-contradictory concept.

The results are bound to be unreliable.

Fluid across society as a whole, but not within most individuals.

Imo most self-identified atheists have an idea of what they think a god is. What this is or whether it is logically consistent is unimportant.

In real life, I've never met a single person who has claimed not to understand what a god is, it is a minority view. As such it doesn't have a big effect when making a generalisation about most atheists.

 

[Revoltingest]

And it is my view that this is what atheists actually believe but refuse to admit.

"Admit" (to confess to a fact, typically with reluctance.) is the wrong word
What I just stated is quite common & openly expressed by us heathens.

I don't think the notion of implicit atheism is coherent, or even cognitively possible. If you can comment upon it, you have a position about it.
It's a word game to manipulate the argument. That's all this whole thing boils down to.

I began with "implicit atheism" because I had no religious training whatsoever.
But upon learning of religion, I became "explicit".
It's no mere word game....it's a description of what happened & what is.
Why object to it?