I’m pretty sure that most knowledgeable people know that someone who claims to be an atheist is just making an overstatement about his/her own beliefs. As most knowledgeable people who claim to be atheist probably know that even the most recognizable faces of atheistic propaganda, such as Richard Dawkins, admitted publicly that they are less than 100% certain that God/gods don’t exist.
My question is: Why would anyone who calls himself an atheist make a statement like that?
If you go by etymology, then
atheist = a-theist = not a theist.
Note that “anti-theist” is a completely different concept
It is not a necessary part of the meaning of “atheist” that an atheist believes there is no god.
Personally, I don’t call myself “atheist”, for two reasons: firstly, I do not fit what Christians seem to mean by “atheist”; secondly, I disagree with some of the things that atheist groups say and do. So I prefer to say that I am non-religious or that I am agnostic.
Careful, you are entering Patrick territory.
It’s my understanding also.
I hesitate to call myself an agnostic, because I “know” that revealed religions are bullshit. For the kind of “knowing” in which I know the Civil War happened.
Non- revealed, contemplative religions can be entertaining and interesting, but do not contribute much to knowledge. Except in the sense that art and fiction teach us about life.
If I’m being precise, I call myself an agnostic — and even more precisely, an agnostic apatheist. Under some conditions I’d happily call myself an ignostic. But for the most part I call myself an atheist because it’s a more widely used label.
But I’m certainly not fond of any of the propagandists of atheism. My favorite all-time atheist is (of course) Benedict Spinoza — with Nietzsche being a close second — and among living atheists, probably Philip Kitcher.
It’s especially amusing that J-Mac thought he was being censored (link, link):
And:
As if anyone here would be afraid of J-Mac’s OP.
I guess atheists are people who are rejecting a conclusion of their being supernatural powers/being.
Animals are Godless but not atheists.
No animal ever believed in God(s).
So in a world of no God and no claim of one there would be no atheists.
As a poster here showed athesist is a rejection of a thesist.
Otherwise its someone would no conclusion or suspiucion of a supernatural being.
The world has insisted forver there are supernatural beings And so rejecting this is a great rejection of humanities intellectual conclusion.
We can disagree about the supernatural beings but rejecting them is a mighty aggrresive assertion against mankind.
On a curve, who is more likely right?
Modern athesists really must work hard to deny mankind and natures assertions of a thoughtful brilliance behind the universe.
You can say chance, chance, but its a hard thing to prove.
Thats why they demand theists prove God etc.
Its easier to debunk the invisible.
keiths,
Me, I’m terrified.
quote:
“But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?
(Job 12:7-9)
end quote:
peace
J-Mac,
This has already been addressed when you brought it up in another thread and there’s even an original post about it.
The short version is that atheism means lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not mean a positive claim that a god or gods do not exist.
Ditto, except for the last. I don’t even know the meaning of god, which is to say…
fifthmonarchyman,
From a Judeo-Christian perspective, there is no stronger indictment of “intelligent design” proponents than the passage in which God addresses Job.
Hahaha. You’re “pretty sure”? What’s the basis of that, your medical training?
Allowing the possibility that a thing might be is the proper way to interpret evidence (or lack thereof) from the view of methodological naturalism. You do not have to be an atheist to subscribe to this view.
I am an owner/moderator of a large online atheist community, and in this role I have encountered many thousands of atheists, and I think this should qualify me as “knowledgeable”. People come to atheism for a variety of reasons. Many subscribe to methodological naturism and reason to philosophical naturalism. Some reject religion for very emotional reasons, often involving terrible abuse. Most are quite clear about their reasons for being an atheist, and express varying degrees of certainty. But NEVER have I encountered an atheist that overstates their beliefs.
I consider myself to be agnostic because reasons, but you can call me an atheist if you wish. It’s not an insult.
I find myself liking KN’s apatheist category. I can’t get at all steamed up on the relative likelihood of existence of gods. On the other hand, I can never recall having the slightest doubt regarding the idea of gods. It’s so obviously human invention and utterly unsupported by evidence that it deserves not a millisecond of consideration. Is that overstating?
All the religions of the world can be wrong, and that says nothing about the existence of god, other than the rather obvious fact that revelation is not clear, not convincing, and not universal. It has all the chisel marks of a manufactured product.
Hmmm. Religion as evidence for intelligent design.
🙂
Being an atheist means you don’t believe in a god or gods. That is not the same thing as being
I don’t believe that JFK’s assassination was a conspiracy, but I’m not 100% certain that it wasn’t. I don’t believe that acupuncture is more effective than a placebo, but I’m not 100% certain that it isn’t. I don’t believe that there is
but I’m not 100% certain that it isn’t there. In fact, I’m not 100% certain of much of anything, and I don’t believe (though I can’t be 100% certain) that anyone else is either. Being less than 100% certain that there is no god is completely consistent with being an atheist. For most atheists, it’s not an “overstatement” of their beliefs; it’s a perfectly accurate statement of their beliefs. The apparent contradiction is purely an artifact of incorrectly defining “atheist” as someone who claims 100% certainty.
Just more confusion on J-Mac’s part, like the imaginary censorship.
The buses don’t think. therefore the verse/statement must mean at a other level. perhaps it means by their compl;exity. yet not by their opinion.
I know there have been people throughout history, worldwide, who have claimed to sincerely believe in lots of different gods. I’m willing to give these claims the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that “there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing.” But the ramifications of this simple observation always terrified me out of becoming a parent. The sheer damage a parent can do to a young mind is almost beyond belief; the damage that can be done armed with Good Intentions is simply too much for thoughtful people to risk. Which means our children are raised by less thoughtful people, and we see the results.
Robert:
fifth:
Robert:
Especially not the short buses.
Robert:
It’s amusing that fifth would take the verse literally.
If bad parenting caused irreparable damage to children, there would be no human species. I say that as someone who worked in protective services. I don’t recommend abusing children, and it is damaging, but kids live through most anything and recover.
Neglect is more damaging.
I think the person who does the annual report on the postings here should start adding in something on the nature (and recycling) of the topics discussed. I think there’s a total of about a dozen different thread topics here, maybe fewer. If threads go on long enough, however, they generally morph into one (or two) of about five subjects. So it seems to me (though this is not based on a study–just a report of a hunch; completely anecdotal) there are actually only about five issues that really interest people who are active here.
Anyhow, I’d like to see a (more specific) hypothesis on this matter actually tested and confirmed or disconfirmed.
Also, I think it might make sense to have a sub-board for those who are obviously insane. I mean by any standard at all.
Just my two cents.
{ETA: Incidentally–what I have kind of introduced here is one of the five. See, e.g., Allan Miller’s thread http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/whats-the-point/#commentshttp:/
Gosh, someone else who is incapable of understanding the simple concept of provisional lack of belief. Quelle surprise. What is it that compels the clueless to perform these public demonstrations on such a regular basis?
??? Nonsense. Of course there would be (and indeed IS) a human species. The irreparable damage done to children of bad (or no) parenting isn’t fatal, just crippling. I carefully used a subset of posters to this very site as an illustration of the sorts of damage I was referring to – selective blindness, galloping confirmation bias, intractable superstition, bone-deep ignorance. All illustrated daily by people who are very much alive. Abuse isn’t acceptable simply because neglect is worse.
The concept is as easy to understand as it is difficult to apply. In practice, there simply is no provision that could either compel or dispel these beliefs. Speak for yourself here – IF reality has god(s) magicking all around us all the time, why are you not already and indelibly convinced of this? Because your disbelief is provisional? Or could it be that you believe you have (and you will ALWAYS believe you have) a better model?
Flint,
You seem to be overlooking the possibility that Stormfield’s position might be based on reason and evidence, and that it could change if new evidence comes to light or if he/she becomes aware of errors in his/her reasoning.
Saying exactly what you mean is not overstating. 🙂
I guess I was confused by the part where you decided not to have children.
it’s amusing you would take a throw away attempt at humor literally instead of just smiling and moving on.
peace
Why would I take it as an attempt at humor? You say equally stupid things — complete with “supporting” Bible verses — practically every day here at TSZ.
Just to emphasize my point; what would a REAL ATHEIST LOOK LIKE? Or, in other words, what does a real atheists need to claim to be one?
Just because someone chooses to be called an atheists doesn’t do it for me…though I have learned to respect that to a degree within my own family…
So, what would be the criteria to view someone as an atheist?
I have some…minuscule ones…
J-Mac,
Their lack of a belief in God(s).
Yes. Yours are tiny.
I’d send a picture but I don’t want it ending up on the back wall of a closet in Mung’s bedroom.
Lack of belief in a god or gods. You’ve had this explained repeatedly. What do you find difficult about the concept?
Probably have to have a modicum of sense. I take it by “family” in your post–you’re going out a ways?
I at least made the attempt to address precisely that position. According to our believer contingent, the evidence is already far more than ample, it’s everywhere you look, provided you are willing to see. They tell you and him this all the time.
The question has been asked, what would YOU regard as sufficient evidence of the gods? And the answer you’ve provided is, sorry, no such thing. AT BEST, you would regard even the most obvious miracle as somehow being a natural phenomenon, simply not as yet explained within your model.
And I’m willing to admit, that’s how I would see it too. Even if some god popped up personally to perform custom miracles, I’d find some way, ANY way, to preserve my model. “Not yet explained” would do nicely.
I didn’t mean to be confusing. If I were to raise children to regard belief in gods as evidence of mental incompetence, I’d consider myself as successful a parent as FMM would if HIS children grew up devout believers in his god. As to which of us would have done less damage as parents, I could never answer that question to my satisfaction.
Flint,
You’re projecting your own closed-mindedness onto me. When have I said any such thing?
I recently wrote:
Flint,
Then you’d be making the same mistake as our ID and theist friends: clinging to your beliefs at any cost by ignoring inconvenient, disconfirming evidence.
Good skeptics maintain a skeptical attitude toward their own beliefs as well as the beliefs of others.
I raised children without ever having any deep discussions of religion. We associated with church affiliated people, and I sang in a choir for a decade, but we never joined a church. I suppose at some point we must have said we must have said we were non believers, but never made a big deal of it.
Among my children’s long term friends are an Episcopal priest and an orthodox Jew. At one point we housed two Muslim kids during an exchange program.
I find it deeply saddening that tolerance has become such a scarce commodity.
No, tolerance is all the rage.
Unless you’re an intolerant shitlord, as demonstrated by the fact that you disagree at all with the right viewpoints of the right people. Then you just deserve to be treated like the scum you are.
That’s how important tolerance is.
Glen Davidson
Heh. You’re giving me hotshoe flashbacks.
Flint,
Alan displays a similar closed-mindedness toward the possibility of the supernatural, though he takes it to the extreme of trying to define the supernatural and the immaterial out of existence. I’m guessing (hoping?) that you wouldn’t take it quite that far.
I commented to Alan:
keiths,
The creationist who claims he’ll believe in evolution when he sees a dog give birth to a trout, shows exactly as much understanding of evolution as you show of religious faith. Both of you demonstrate a complete unwillingness to even consider the other’s position, content to mock an absurd caricature and pat yourselves on the back. Yet you call this “rational”. You only make my case.
I don’t regard you as a good skeptic, because I don’t think you practice what you are preaching. You are surely aware of the “god of the gaps” history of evidence “confirming” religious claims falling to the process of scientific investigation. To the best of my knowledge, NO such confirmation has ever been ratified — every single one has either proved natural, or is still in doubt. There is no supernatural component to any scientific theory, and nothing substantive science has been unwilling to investigate.
My skeptical position is that the default position with respect to any claim is that there are no gods, so the gods didn’t do it. This default has never been incorrect once anything is sufficiently well understood.
if
I read Alan as saying that, when presented with something unexpected and unexplained, some few will respond by trying to figure out exactly what’s going on, while most will simply regard it as the gods in action.
Let’s take one of your examples: Christians, and only Christians, run around bringing the dead back to life, simply by praying. No one else can do it. Now, having observed this, would you immediately concede that Christians have been right in every particular they’ve claimed for millennia? Or would you wish to see this action performed repeatedly, under controlled conditions, so you could gather as much data as possible?
And if you DID think detailed investigation was warranted, do you understand that you would be automatically rejecting the religious view, and imposing the scientific view whether it was right or wrong?
I don’t think you are thinking anything through. You are simply reaching into a bag of gotchas you keep as debating tools. One does not convert or deconvert based on the sorts of “evidence” you have produced. Even you should know that evidence ONLY matters once the conversion or deconversion process has reached the point where it becomes relevant.
Stormfeld will start seeing convincing evidence only when he has the emotional and psychological need for religious faith. At which point, everything he sees around him will be ample evidence.
I generally agree with this, but I might go a bit farther. The conception of God popular with Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus is so facocta that I’m not sure it would be possible to confirm it in any case. God is supposed to be flesh, not flesh, truth, personal, bearded, one, three, timeless, etc. etc. It’s a big basket of nonsense. If keiths’ “skepticism” involves “keeping an open mind” to that kind of cray-cray, I’m not interested in being a good sceptic.
That’s because evidence like that doesn’t exist. If it did, I hope I’d be willing to consider the possibility that it points to God in general, and the Christian God(s) in particular. There’s little sense in saying that keiths’ hypothetical evidence doesn’t convince anyone when the whole point is that, of course it doesn’t, but if it did it might very well be evidence for Christianity.
I’d say that my only default is empiricism, since I can’t say that I can imagine how I’d show that anything exists beyond myself without some sort of sensory evidence (and mental reasoning). To be sure, if something extraordinary were said to be indicated by the evidence (like angels, God, ID) I’d be more skeptical, yet that would be true of Bigfoot and cold fusion as well as the supernatural, although the supernatural has somewhat further to go, due to its lack of agreement with known physics (ok, cold fusion seems not to agree with physics either, but physics changes at times, and cold fusion isn’t obviously as out there as, say, Joseph of Cupertino’s purported levitation). No problem with giving skepticism its due, but I wouldn’t want to be too skeptical in the face of really good evidence for the supernatural.
I’ll insist on empiricism, because it seems to be necessary for me to know what exists. Otherwise, it’s a matter of judgment based on the likelihood or unlikelihood of what is claimed. “I don’t know” is fine for something vanishingly rare and nearly impossible to study, like ball lightning, but if the evidence for Christianity-pointing miracles were truly compelling, I hope I’d be open to believing that Christianity is true.
“Fine-tuning” and complex function in life’s structures really doesn’t cut it, however.
Glen Davidson
I’m not interested in conforming to anyone’s definition of any ism.
I’m as certain as the sun will rise that revealed revealed religions are human inventions. I’m pretty sure that real reality is beyond human understanding. I do not expect to find out why there is something rather than nothing.
If other people wish to make terms like atheist, agnostic, non-believer, skeptic, etc, and imbue them with all kinds of magical properties and entailments, they are free to do so, and I am free to ignore them.
Well, I am.
You certainly put one of the biggest problems with believing on the table, though, which is that it’s hard to make sense of what religionists even want us to conclude from the supposed evidence. I think the world would make a good deal less sense if religion appeared by the evidence to be true, yet I don’t really know that the world must make sense, so I’m not sure that is a sound objection.
Maybe thesis and antithesis do produce a synthesis that doesn’t exactly follow from either or both. At least we can imagine that it’s true–ask Hegel or Kierkegaard.
Of course one of the most simple-minded demands that FMM ever produced was that we relate exactly what would convince us that God exists. I don’t know, because nothing that I know relates to something so strange and hypothetically intensely related to our existence. Even miracles might not be what they seem (I mean in the sense that they may be supernatural yet fraudulent somehow), and interpretation is a nightmare. We don’t actually know how to think “God” coherently, so that if there were great evidence for some supernatural phenomena it could only be approached as a learning experience, yet with the possibility that we’d never really understand.
But we should be willing to try.
Glen Davidson