What do Atheist Believe?

[Heyo]

As many have pointed out atheists (no idea why you'd use 'Atheist') are not a group with a set of beliefs, so I can only speak for myself.

I use the capitalized versions of Atheist and Agnostic when writing about the philosophies of that names.

 

[Audie]

I am actually wanting to get some ideas because I am interested to know if atheism is an experience of a general lack of belief. It seems to me that in order to be a cognitive atheist, you must disallow belief altogether as how can any belief support the demands of concrete evidence or proof? Is there a way to reconcile a reasoning behind any belief?

Is " believer" ac experience of just believing things?
Like pure credulous naivite?
Like farmers farm, and believers believe?

Is there a way to reconcile the lack of any reasoning or evidence whatever, with Belief?

That's the peculiar state of mind that needs examination. Do you ever even think about it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do you mean? Facts are pretty obvious.

I know and believe my children and husband exists and i can see the sun.

So yes atheists do have believe. And disbelief.

What has the future got to do with the current price of eggs?

So yes, in the future the sun will blitz our planet, either with a solar flare (tentative belief) or by going red giant and swallowing it, factual so believe it. By that time humans probably won't exist anyway so don't worry about it.

And what makes you question another's believe, a person you know nothing about. Seems rather arrogant to me

It's different for me.

I don't need to believe I had a father and mother.

Why would I need belief for something already established and factual?

 

[ratiocinator]

I use the capitalized versions of Atheist and Agnostic when writing about the philosophies of that names.

Can not believing something or not knowing something, really be described as philosophies?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's different for me.

I don't need to believe I had a father and mother.

Why would I need belief for something already established and factual?

Yeah, you do knowledge different than me.
To me knowledge needs a core of beliefs, that are not with proof, evidence or truth.
As already mentioned by another poster these 3 in some variation is a good start.

The universe is real.
The universe can be understood with some sort of regularity.
You can make sense of the universe.

But in the Western tradition of knowledge in at least some sub-traditions these are axiomatic assumptions and the basis of knowledge, but not knowledge themselves.

 

[Audie]

Can not believing something or not knowing something, really be described as philosophies?

It sure isn't a "philosophy" for me

 

[ChristineM]

It's different for me.

I don't need to believe I had a father and mother.

Why would I need belief for something already established and factual?

Is it the way the mind works?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ot sure isn't a "philosophy":forcme.

Can you rephrase that?

 

[Nakosis]

So my brain is natural. My brain causes my mind to do something unnatural and that can cause my natural brain to do something.
Okay, explain with evidence how we can observe that?

Evidence that dreams can effect our conscious behavior.
Scientists state that dreams can affect the behavior and mood for the following day and studies are now showing the dreams can even affect the relationships between partners. A study done by researchers at the University of Maryland has provided evidence showing the connection between dreams and the behavior of the relationships. The relationships in which one of the members dreamed about cheating and lying between the couple had more arguments and fights. The study states that our partners other appears in 20% of our dreams which significantly increases the chances of our brains to dream up improbable, yet believable scenarios. However, could the study show more of a correlation between the relationship’s conflict and dreams rather than causation? It seems possible that the participants of the study could have come across a multitude of confounding variables. For example the participants knowledge of the study itself cause the data to alter, resulting in an inconclusive study.
How do dreams affect us? | SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy

Evidence that mentally healthy people have bizarre dreams.
The theoretical framework in which our study is set defines cognitive bizarreness as a measurable aspect of dream and waking mentation, and our results show some consistency of this measure across the two states in the experimental sample: cognitive bizarreness was roughly the same in the TAT stories and dream reports of Parkinson’s disease patients and was similar to that found in the dream reports of the comparison group, but was almost completely absent in the TAT stories of the comparison group.

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/jnp.2010.22.4.395

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence that dreams can effect our conscious behavior.
Scientists state that dreams can affect the behavior and mood for the following day and studies are now showing the dreams can even affect the relationships between partners. A study done by researchers at the University of Maryland has provided evidence showing the connection between dreams and the behavior of the relationships. The relationships in which one of the members dreamed about cheating and lying between the couple had more arguments and fights. The study states that our partners other appears in 20% of our dreams which significantly increases the chances of our brains to dream up improbable, yet believable scenarios. However, could the study show more of a correlation between the relationship’s conflict and dreams rather than causation? It seems possible that the participants of the study could have come across a multitude of confounding variables. For example the participants knowledge of the study itself cause the data to alter, resulting in an inconclusive study.
How do dreams affect us? | SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy

Evidence that mentally healthy people have bizarre dreams.
The theoretical framework in which our study is set defines cognitive bizarreness as a measurable aspect of dream and waking mentation, and our results show some consistency of this measure across the two states in the experimental sample: cognitive bizarreness was roughly the same in the TAT stories and dream reports of Parkinson’s disease patients and was similar to that found in the dream reports of the comparison group, but was almost completely absent in the TAT stories of the comparison group.
View attachment 73568
https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/jnp.2010.22.4.395

So science can study that which is not natural? My answer was as much to Mock Turtle as you.

 

[Nakosis]

So science can study that which is not natural? My answer was as much to Mock Turtle as you.

Yes, through observation and comparison as done in the studies previously mentioned.
Sorry, not sure which answer to Mock Turtle you're referring to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, through observation and comparison as done in the studies previously mentioned.
Sorry, not sure which answer to Mock Turtle you're referring to.

Okay, if I understand you correctly, there is something which is not natural. How do you know that? How do you observe that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand there is atheism and there is agnosticism. Agnosticism is what everyone experiences to certain degress, however, I am curious to know if atheism is possible in humans, and if so, how does it affect ones belief structure.

No, not everyone is an agnostic.

Agnosticism is the positive assertion that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable.

 

[PureX]

Interestingly, I tend to associate atheism with the right-wing. In part this is because of all of those "skeptic" YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad, thunderf00t, and Amazing Atheist blowing up with the "anti-SJW" trend that's now turned into the "anti-woke" trend. As well as Richard Dawkins, eventually.

It's also due to the fact that Objectivists, LaVeyan Satanists, Machiavellians, and social Darwinists all tend to be both atheist and right-wing.

I used to be in a bubble of right-wing philosophies, though. For the longest time, I didn't even know that there were atheist leftists. I grew up being taught that leftists were nominal Christians who didn't really know what the Bible said, so I just thought they were all Christian for the longest time.

Color me surprised when I found out that liberals are neither leftist nor Christian. That's how little I knew about what they actually believed, because I grew up in a conservative echo-chamber where even the atheists were conservative.

Welcome to the 'bigger world', and thank you for being open to it. Your presence is appreciated.

 

[ChristineM]

Interestingly, I tend to associate atheism with the right-wing.

Trust me on this,i am pretty much left wing liberal (with some oddities) and atheist

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, if I understand you correctly, there is something which is not natural. How do you know that? How do you observe that?

By the chart I provided. It define what would not be natural.
Once you've define the parameters of what you are looking for you can do controlled studies.

 

[F1fan]

No, not everyone is an agnostic.

Agnosticism is the positive assertion that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable.

This is why it's arguable that everyone is agnostic, at least in the general sense of a God existing. It's clear that specific gods can be ruled out as existing IF there is adequate descriptions that can be used to assess how it fits with what we know of how things are. The dilemma with theists in recent years is that they are very shy about making claims about what their gods are, so that leaves a lot of ambiguity and mystery. But that tactic alone is reason for doubt, and even being agnostic about their claims.

In debate and logic any claim is treated neutrally, neither true or false. But that means it isn't assumed true, and any truth of the claim is in proportion to the level of evidence. Weak evidence means it is doubtful as true. Given that being neutral doesn't mean we give any credibility to the claim, and perhaps agnosticism gives away too much credit to implausible ideas.

 

[Heyo]

No, not everyone is an agnostic.

Agnosticism is the positive assertion that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable.

... or at least not known by anyone today.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By the chart I provided. It define what would not be natural.
Once you've define the parameters of what you are looking for you can do controlled studies.

So to define means "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action". That is a human action "meant". So in effect by saying something means X, it becomes X.
Let me show how that works. The definition of truth is what I Mikkel say is true becomes. a fact. So that is how the world works, because that is what truth means and is.

 

[Trimijopulos]

It seems to me that Atheists are most concerned with proof.

That is true! I have been studying the subject of religion for thirty years and, in the process, I taught myself to translate the Egyptian hieroglyphic when I realized that the Egyptologists were mistranslating the texts to protect religion.
Modern theology is based on ancient Egyptian theology.

So, I eventually have proof that the God concept is the product of an ancient joke, which makes God a joke and takes care of his existence.

...but what I am curious to know is: Is there anything that Atheist believe in?

Atheism has to do with knowledge. If it is belief you are interested in, ask theists and agnostics.

Outside of the topic of religion… I believe that my local football team is the best there is.