-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can atheists reconcile with theists?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that not how lack of belief works. Having a lack of belief in one thing does NOT automatically mean a belief to the contrary. Here's an example.
The two of us enter a room neither of us has ever been in before. In the room is a table with a jar sitting on it filled to the brim with marbles. I look at the jar an state:
"I believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less." I then turn to you and say; "Do you ALSO believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less?"
You look at the jar and say to me: "No, I do not believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less."
Now, did you just tell me that you think there definitely are NOT 448 marbles in the jar? No, you did not. You simply stated that based on the limited evidence you've been presented that you can't claim that there definitely ARE 448 marbles, no more and no less. You can't claim an actual belief that this is the exact number without further evidence.
Now let's take Big Foot. The question is, do I definitely believe that Big Foot exists. Based on the evidence I have seen, I cannot state that I definitely believe that Bog Foot is real. That does not mean that I definitely believe that Big Foot is fake. I concede that it's POSSIBLE, but without further evidence I certainly can't claim to have a genuine belief in Big Foot.
Belief in a god or gods works the exact same way. Do I definitely believe that a god or gods exist? No, there isn't sufficient evidence for me to do so. Is it POSSIBLE that a god or gods exist? I suppose so, but again, I will need actual evidence before I can state that I definitely believe that one exists.
An agnostic on the other hand looks at the evidence and SOMETIMES they think it's sufficient to claim belief, but OTHER times they look at the evidence and it seems lacking, so they really don't know if they believe or not.
Probably a better chance for a Deist and an Atheist to find at least some common ground. Theology, on the other hand, is a bit more of a challenge due to the dogma, especially the more fundamentalist variety as there is not much room allowed for discussion.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Don't know why. It isn't the character of god that's troubling to atheists, but the concept of god itself.
From what I've seen (particularly Matt Dillahunty on YouTube) atheists find Christian theology of all stripes to be a provoking.
Here's an interesting example.
.
Last edited:
I suppose it would depend a lot on the personalities of said atheist and deist, and whether or not they wanted to try.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Don't know why personalities has any bearing on the issue. Just keep in mind that:
Theists say there is a god
Atheists, for the most part, say, show me the evidence.
Atheists, for the most part, say, show me the evidence.
So what is this "common ground" you imagine theists and atheists coming together on?
.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
This.
In the many posts you've written since this one, you are displaying what I can only call a desperate need to insist on "belief" as opposed to "lack of belief" for the case of atheism. Whether you self-identified as an atheist, or an anti-pastafarian, or any other thing has literally zero to do with how others approach issues that ask them to affirm some belief or other.
And not to put too fine a colour on it, you understand something about your own presumed atheism (which turns out not to be what you believed at all, by the way, but only presumed). You do not, however, have any particular insight into my atheism, or anyone else's.
But let's talk about what makes "rational sense," for a moment, because this will help you understand my atheism. The only notions that I have of deities are those that are given to me by believers. So, of course, I grew up in a Christian world, and I received the usual indoctrination -- although to an hugely lesser degree than a lot of religious folks -- and what I was told about that religion made no "rational sense" to me. I was taught that "God sees the little sparrow fall," but I reasoned that if He's God, what does it matter if He doesn't hold out His mighty hand to break that fall? That just makes him a sadistic voyeur, unwilling to use what power he's supposed to have to prevent harm. I was taught about "original sin," but I refused to believe that I could be guilty for anything another human did, and therefore I refused to think of myself as a sinner.
I didn't get the same training in Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or the Baha'i faith, but what I've read since also lacked that same "rational sense" that I require.
On the other hand, I believe in gravity, and when I'm in precarious situations, that belief governs my behaviour. I believe that a glowing piece of metal, like the burner on my stove, can do great harm if I touch it, and that belief governs my behaviour. I believe that my lover loves me, and would not hurt me, and those beliefs govern my behaviour.
The idea of God, however, has no real meaning for me, and therefore it has no impact on my behaviours and my choices.
Bottom line on this part of my response: our beliefs inform our actions. And nothing about my atheism informs my actions. I do not act in a specific way because of any lack of belief in gods. I act based on the things that I actually do believe. Lack of belief is, in a word, lack of motivation.
As I have tried to point out (obviously with no success, as you appear not to be listening) you are simply incorrect. Nothing that starts with "I do not," just for starters, can be called a "positive assertion." It is syntactically and logically a negative statement. You might say "I have a million dollars," and I might respond "I do not." That doesn't mean I'm a pauper, any more than it means I'm not a billionaire. Both are possible, along with every possibility with the single exception of my possessing one million dollars. I might possess ten billion, or I might actually be in debt for fifty thousand. But I made no positive assertion.
In the same way, someone might say "I believe that Donald Trump will go down in history as the worst president ever." The person who responds, "I don't believe that," are not saying anything at all about Donald Trump, or about his presidency. They've said nothing about who they think might be better or worse, or what makes a good or bad president. They've simply said they don't accept the assertion, for whatever reasons seem good to them.
Because I have lived 71 years in a world in which religious belief has had an absolutely immense impact, and I've studied history enough to see that religious belief is a huge driver of human behaviours. I myself, a gay man, have been the target of religion. Fairies (no, not my kind), or their believers, have never tried to make laws to have me imprisoned, or stoned to death. Read history. There has never been a war about belief in Santa Claus, fairies, leprechauns, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But millions have died, and continue to die up to this very moment, for variations in belief about this thing called "God." Believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden, if you will, and I won't care. But if you begin killing your neighbours for disagreeing, then I will become an "Afairiest" right away.
Really? I'm not smart enough to appreciate all your insight. But I'm honest enough to hold to my own truth.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
@ManSinha, I’m trying to understand what you might have been thinking, or what your question was. Surely you already knew that multitudes of people who disagree about God find common ground all the time, in all kinds of ways? Surely you already knew that multitudes of people who disagree about God are good friends with each other, and there’s nothing that needs to be reconciled between them?
I’m thinking that maybe you saw something in that video that vindicates an idea of yours about how people could stop feuding with each other about God? You thought that maybe watching that video might persuade some people to allow for a possibility that their opponents in the feuding might not be wrong, and that might help stop the feuding?
I’m thinking that maybe you saw something in that video that vindicates an idea of yours about how people could stop feuding with each other about God? You thought that maybe watching that video might persuade some people to allow for a possibility that their opponents in the feuding might not be wrong, and that might help stop the feuding?
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
If you watched the video - the gentleman takes a middle of the road approach (IMO) trying to get each person (who hitherto was firmly in their own lane) to try and see the worldview from the other's point of view. He tends to emphasize self exploration rather than belief on someone else's say so. I find him a somewhat humorous speaker as he tries to take on the existential issues that we deal with. Part of the idea was to introduce him to the wider RF community - nothing personal - his religion and his gods (pleural) are not mine - but I absolutely loved the different points of view expressed in this thread
Jim
Nets of Wonder
@ManSinha I see some debating here about whether or not atheism is a belief as much as theism. I won’t try to answer that question in those terms, but I have some thoughts that might be relevant to the question.
I remember a time, forty years ago or more, when the only people who called themselves atheists were people who thought they knew that there is no God. I was one of those people. People who weren’t sure, or who didn’t have any opinion about it, didn’t call themselves atheists. Now I see people calling themselves atheists, who say that it simply means that their ways of thinking don’t include any god or Gods. That’s okay with me, and I would be glad for everyone to learn to think that way.
Sometimes I’ve seen people, including atheists sometimes, equating atheism with denouncing belief in any of the Gods of Christianity and Islam, as harmful in itself and as always and only a symptom of some kind of personality or character defect. That might be what confuses people sometimes into thinking that “atheism” means believing that there is no God.
I remember a time, forty years ago or more, when the only people who called themselves atheists were people who thought they knew that there is no God. I was one of those people. People who weren’t sure, or who didn’t have any opinion about it, didn’t call themselves atheists. Now I see people calling themselves atheists, who say that it simply means that their ways of thinking don’t include any god or Gods. That’s okay with me, and I would be glad for everyone to learn to think that way.
Sometimes I’ve seen people, including atheists sometimes, equating atheism with denouncing belief in any of the Gods of Christianity and Islam, as harmful in itself and as always and only a symptom of some kind of personality or character defect. That might be what confuses people sometimes into thinking that “atheism” means believing that there is no God.
Jim
Nets of Wonder
It’s fun and funny for me to see that just now, because I was just thinking that I would like to see people learning and practicing the ways of thinking of people whose views are opposed to theirs. One possible way I see for that to happen is for people who are doing that to talk about our experiences, so people can see how much fun it is and how good it is for us.
There are plenty of things I "lack belief" in. But I don't self-identify as as an unbeliever in them. I simply ignore them. It seems God is big enough of a concept to make a stance on it with the self-identity of atheism. It's still "about God". If it was no big deal, then why say anything at all, let alone self-identify as not-believing it?
Same here.
All of this is perfectly fine to me. The question of God or No-God is a question about the nature of Ultimate Reality. I recognize that, and appreciate and accept both beliefs about it. They are both valid beliefs. What I don't accept is the denial that atheism is not a belief about this question, that it's not an affirmation of belief. That smacks of disingenuousness, not wanting it to be considered a belief because it sounds "religious".
Atheism as part of religious beliefs is perfectly fine. I support that, as I do theism in that same context. It's not a question of whether atheism is valid or not, or theism either. It's a question of denying it's a belief when it clearly is. It's not neutral.
That's an entirely different thing. It can be a little fun puncturing overly-inflated beliefs and all the denials that go along with it, when someone takes their beliefs and tries to tell everyone else theirs is wrong, such as when theists try to tell atheists their belief is wrong. Or, when atheists try to tell theists their belief is wrong.
It's simply flip sides of the belief coin wanting to be "right". And that was the point of the video, and the story of the Buddha answering questions about the existence of God to the theist and to the atheist, affirming the opposite of their beliefs to them. It's still beliefs, whether theist or atheist, and not knowledge on either hand.
Of course. I can't imagine any belief that is held by anyone that does not have some sort of support in their minds to them, on some level or another. Everyone has reasons for what they believe, even if the truth of them is insufficient for others to believe it too. People don't just arbitrarily believe things, like some involuntary spasm, without some kernel of truth for them in it. Atheists have their reason why they believe there is no God, just as theists have their reasons for believe there is a God. There is truth for each of them in their respective beliefs.
Which is fine of course. But I do have to point out that that is a positive statement of belief. It is saying the same thing as "I believe the existence of God or gods is not possible".
I would challenge this statement that agnosticism equals confusion. I personally see it as the more cautious, or reasonable approach in the absence of experience.
These are all justifications to support that belief that they do not exist, nor are they possible. Those that believe they do exist have all their justifications to support that belief as well and have supporting arguments themselves too. Again, both are positions of belief, and both claim support and evidences as you do here.
While the atheist, or the non-UFO believer in this example, may believe they have the stronger supporting evidence, those do not equal actual knowledge. And that was the point of the thread. Belief is not knowledge. Neither the theist believing God exists, nor the atheist believing God does not exist, has actual knowledge.
Yes, it can be an unsettling realization to have, because we like to assume our "objectivity" gets rid of subjectivity, taking ourselves off the hook for the things we chose to believe in. Even our "objectivity" is born out of subjectivity, and certainly is held within the subjective domain. "I believe" is a subjective experience.
No it doesn't. Certainly not to me at least.
First, it's not "fuzzy, feel-good language". It's a philosophical truth. It's a conclusion that is unavoidable by many of the great thinkers of the day. You can refer to Wilfrid Sellars, for one, who challenges what is called the "Myth of the Given", or the myth of the pregiven world, that reality is just laying around out there for us to discover "as is", independent of our subjectivity.I do believe that we have to have sufficient supports for our statements of belief in order to make them functionally valid. One can't just say anything they want, and claim it's a valid as some other position. I cite this article all the time when someone says all opinions are just as good as all others: No, you're not entitled to your opinion
No, that's not true at all. Beliefs are important. They give structures for our lives to have direction and meaning. However, those structures are largely relative to the society or group which holds them collectively. They are relative, not absolute. They are inter-subjective reality, which merge with the concrete world and become part of its "objectivity". How we hold what is objectively reality, is held subjectively by all individual through this process.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
Well, this is awkward. Reading the part of my post you quoted, I honestly have no idea where I came up with that or what I was saying. It doesn't reflect what I mean to say, or feel I meant to say. Basically - I think I started writing one thing, and ended with half of another thought.
At any rate, I feel that, for the most part,"beliefs" only really matter to humanity as a whole if they can be demonstrated to adhere to reality in a way that demonstrates practicality of the belief - that is, be inter-subjectively verified or at the very least, inter-subjectively studied (even if the same conclusions can't be reached for subjective reasons), and have common, reproduce-able results. There are too many beliefs that hold no promise of productivity for others who don't hold them. For example, it behooves us both to recognize the stone before us, and to understand its composition. Perhaps it contains an ore of some type, or gold. It does not behoove us both to recognize your (or my) version of God as being "real." There is no productivity for me to gain, no actual use that I might have for your God. Nothing I can use it for consistently with the same results each time I set about using it - unless (and I feel this is important) I am very consistent in the ways in which I delude myself.
If I said I do not believe there are exactly 448 marbles, then I am stating a belief. It is the same as me saying, "I believe that count is wrong, There is NOT 448 marbles". That is a statement of belief.
What would be accurate would be to state, "I believe that neither your nor I can say what the exact number is, or is not, because both of us lack sufficient evidence. It could be 448, or it could not". That's agnositism. But to say, "No, you are definitely wrong, there is NOT 448 marbles", is itself a statement of belief.
But this is not what atheism is doing. It is not simply saying, "You can't say for sure. And neither can I". No. It is saying "I do not believe there is 448 marbles". You are specifically denying that the count is 448.
How I would state this myself is this. "Based upon the lack of supporting evidence and the debunking of all the claims previously made, I believe the possibility that Bigfoot actually exists is next to none." You see how that is itself a statement of my belief? "I believe". "I believe Bigfoot is not real".
Now, if I was to say, "I believe I can't really say either way," then I'm agnostic.
So if you can't say one way or the other, then why hold the position that you believe God doesn't exist? "Atheism" is a position of belief that holds that God does not exist. That is its very construction as a word, "No-God" A-Theism.
A-Gnostic, or No-Knowledge is open. Theism is not open. Atheism is not open. They are both positive statements of belief, even if on the belief spectrum there are varying degrees of certainty and uncertainty. If you are mostly as one end versus the others, than that is you currently held belief position.
That's right. Unlike the theist who believes God does exist, or the atheist who believes God does not exist.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
"I believe that neither your nor I can say what the exact number is, or is not, because both of us lack sufficient evidence. It could be 448, or it could not"
That would be a great response... IF my statement had been. "I believe that it's POSSIBLE that MAYBE there MIGHT be exactly 448 marbles in the jar... do you also believe that it's POSSIBLE that MAYBE there MIGHT be exactly 448 marbles in the jar?"
But I didn't. I asked if you definitely believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in the jar. Since you have absolutely no reason to believe that there are exactly 448 marbles, the answer to the question is "No, I do not definitely believe that... though I accept that it's POSSIBLE that MAYBE there MIGHT be."
The same holds true for theists. IF theists were telling me that they believe that it's POSSIBLE that MAYBE there MIGHT be some sort of a creator god, my answer would be completely different. But they don't. They say that they definitely believe that a god exists. In fact, they claim to know which god is the real one and which are fake and even go so far as to tell what what this god expects of me and ask me if I definitely believe as well.
But this is not what atheism is doing. It is not simply saying, "You can't say for sure. And neither can I". No. It is saying "I do not believe there is 448 marbles". You are specifically denying that the count is 448.
Except that's NOT what an atheist is stating. Saying that I don't believe that there are definitely exactly 448 marbles is NOT the same as saying the believe that there definitely are NOT exacvtly 448 marbles.
It's not desperate need. It's the same need you would have in dealing with an evolution denier when what they are stating is not a fact. I see it as a desire for integrity and truth. And yes, that's a good need. I encourage understanding these things as something Atheism 1.0 needs to look at so it can move its love of rationality even beyond itself, turning the same light of scrutiny it does on theism upon itself. Atheism 2.0 is looking a lot more promising, IMO.
You see, I have absolutely nothing against atheism as a belief option. I think getting beyond the mythic-literal image of God holds a great deal of insights and promise for future understanding of the nature of reality. But it is a first step. Why do you think I was one for over a decade, being a champion of its flavor of rationality over the superstitious and unfounded claims of myth proposed and taught as though it was scientifically valid? It helped ground me in some semblance of a sensible reality.
I could write many flowery praises for atheism and its contribution to the larger picture. I could write that because atheism is part of who I am. I didn't divorce from it. I graduated from it, just as I graduated from theism. The God you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
But a couple interesting things here I'd like to point out. That you should phrase it, "which turns out not to be what you believed at all", is exactly to the point of this discussion. You are thinking in "belief vs belief" terms. An atheist says "the belief in God is not true". The Christian says the opposite. This says exactly to me that your perception of atheism is that it was something I "believed in", and lost faith in it as it was "not true."
It is not a matter of true versus false to me. It is to atheism. It is to theism. It is not to me. Theism and atheism are simply two ways of looking at the same thing. They are both true, and both false in that they have the impression their ways of perceiving ultimate reality (and that is what God represents), is either this, or that, true or false, black or white, on or off, etc. To me both are just paint brushes of differing colors painting the same thing from different perceptions.
As I said, both theism and atheism are part of me. They are not "wrong". They are understandings.
And as far as speaking of atheism in general, I most certainly am qualified to speak to it. You think my saying I am a former self-identified atheist with all my group participations and memberships, somehow now disqualifies me to know anything about this? And BTW, you are presuming to speak for atheists too, since you are speaking for all them in denial of what I am saying here.You see, I have absolutely nothing against atheism as a belief option. I think getting beyond the mythic-literal image of God holds a great deal of insights and promise for future understanding of the nature of reality. But it is a first step. Why do you think I was one for over a decade, being a champion of its flavor of rationality over the superstitious and unfounded claims of myth proposed and taught as though it was scientifically valid? It helped ground me in some semblance of a sensible reality.
I could write many flowery praises for atheism and its contribution to the larger picture. I could write that because atheism is part of who I am. I didn't divorce from it. I graduated from it, just as I graduated from theism. The God you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
First of all, that's offensive. It's like a Christian saying to an ExChristian, "You were never really a true Christian", or "It was presumed faith". Would you like me to send you my atheist baptismal record for your review?
But a couple interesting things here I'd like to point out. That you should phrase it, "which turns out not to be what you believed at all", is exactly to the point of this discussion. You are thinking in "belief vs belief" terms. An atheist says "the belief in God is not true". The Christian says the opposite. This says exactly to me that your perception of atheism is that it was something I "believed in", and lost faith in it as it was "not true."
It is not a matter of true versus false to me. It is to atheism. It is to theism. It is not to me. Theism and atheism are simply two ways of looking at the same thing. They are both true, and both false in that they have the impression their ways of perceiving ultimate reality (and that is what God represents), is either this, or that, true or false, black or white, on or off, etc. To me both are just paint brushes of differing colors painting the same thing from different perceptions.
As I said, both theism and atheism are part of me. They are not "wrong". They are understandings.
Yes, and this is a view I think that atheism does a service to dispel to many to help us move beyond such a limiting perspective. What you just described is the mythic-literal view of God. When we live in such a modern world with education available to teach us about how to reason in order to understanding a more complex and nuanced society, and world we live in, such views cannot withstand the scalpel of critical thinking that way. They aren't designed for that purpose, and should not be treated as such either.
I think a better way is for atheism to recognize the nature of what mythologies are, and what functions they have for us a humans and humans in social and cultural contexts. Understanding they are not rational constructs (the inherent contradictions you cited), does not make them invalid on a different level. In a different context, these systems of belief make sense and provide a relatively cohesive whole to those within that system, such as those living before the Enlightenment in the 17th century.
In modern times now however, if we get far enough beyond a "this is right and that is wrong" style of thinking, we can understand that we ourselves, in our atheism, construct systems of belief upon which we hang the fabric of reality that we see ourselves and reality through. We do the same thing as the mythic believers do.
Once we recognize, and come to terms with that, that atheism is a much a belief in ultimate reality as theism is, then we can say "hey we're both doing it, so why can't I recognize none of it is really about "facts" or "logic" when it comes to talking about something so enormously abstract as the nature of Existence itself?
So that's where I go with this, and where it comes from, in part. Hopefully some of this makes sense.
I think I may be clearing something up for myself in trying to talk about this. When you are saying the "idea of God", what I am hearing is that when you think, or thought of the "ultimate reality", and that is what people are pointing at when they introduce God as a concept, it was the image of that with its depiction to you from them that you found wouldn't fit that. In other words, consciously or not, you had to have a screen upon which to place that image, which either fit well enough as it does for some, or not well enough as it did for you.
Cleary, you were too rational to accept the depiction they offered you. It didn't fit into how your mind works when imagining ultimate reality. It didn't me either. I am like you this way. To assume I believe the way about Ultimate Reality today as they depict it, would be a mistake.
Your beliefs about ultimate reality do. You just don't have a deity figure in it. I don't either. I see "God" or "ultimate reality" as infinitely beyond the depiction of our mythologies.
No, you are still motivated by how you view ultimate truth of existence, on some level or another. Everyone is, even if it isn't a burning question in the forefront of their minds. You live life as if the material world is all there is, and that has meaning and shapes everything you do. None of which is without merit.
I am listening quite well and attentively. I just do not accept that to state "I do not believe God exists" to be something different than saying "I believe God does not exist". They are identical. It is a belief that ultimate reality is not the depiction of God you learned, or that any God exists. I hear said otherwise, but I don't believe it. It's a really hot-button issue for a lot of atheists (not all have a problem calling it a belief), therefore, it's a "sensitive" thing. I surmise that is because it sounds too much like saying "faith", which, God forbid, is beneath reason.
Try this: "I do not believe God exists." vs. "I believe God does not exist". Both are saying the same thing. Both are a positive assertion. And that's fine, if that's how you choose to believe. Either way is fine.
But they have made a positive assertion that the believe he won't be. They are asserting they believe it won't be him.
Do you think religion and theism are the same thing?
I did not say that. I am talking to you in the belief you actually are. I spent more time on this post than most. What I am saying is don't assume I'm not intelligent or insightful in what I am saying. Hopefully, you can see I am not just some hack.
Last edited:
Let's clarify this. If you met some theist who says "I believe that God definitely exists," and your response is "I don't believe you can say that definitely like that. It's a belief", you would be correct. That is not atheism however. I would say that to them too.
Atheism instead says in this scenario "Unlike you, I do not believe there is 448 marbles". It has made a declaration of disbelief that 448 is the correct number. It doesn't generously say, "It might be, but I'm not willing to say that definitely like you." That is the voice of an agnostic, "not knowing" either way. Your analogy does not reflect the actual situation. Atheism, in your example is A-448, or "not-448".
If that is what they say, then your response should be, "Neither you nor I can state that as a fact." Instead however, the atheist says, "No, you are wrong. God does not exist". That is a positive affirmation of belief. I sounds like you're soft-pedaling this to make atheism sound safer, more like agnosticism.
I say be bold, and say what you actually believe! Stand up and say it proudly. I didn't shy away from it when I called myself an atheist. It's perfectly fine to say you believe God doesn't exist, if that's what you believe.
And you affirmatively reject all those beliefs, correct?