Atheism is simply a "Lack of Belief"!

[CapriMark1]

This thread is in opposition to the similarly named thread, but in this one, I'd like to discuss what I think is the way most atheists think about themselves.  Put another way, tell me about atheism as defined as not believing.

I'll start:

I know people who have problems taking a position - they prefer to be non-committal.  If they were atheists, they would be what I am describing.

Further, I have known people who just can't decide what their position is.

I could go on.  So have at it.

[brewerb]

I'm a non believer in god(s) because I've never encountered any concrete evidence. It's that simple.

From a psychological position I understand why the concept of a god(s) might be comforting to some people, and used as a tool by societies.

[SYZ]

As an ignostic, I noted this topic, but because of my
ignosticism I probably(?) can't add anything to this
thread that I've not already posted elsewhere on this
forum.

And I'm sorry Capri, but I'm thinking that the thrust of
this thread has already been covered elsewhere.  We've
been debating the question of "belief" v. "non-belief" for
hundreds of posts in other threads.

What more can I say?  The question of "belief" or
otherwise doesn't really concern ignostics like me.
 
Belief—or non belief—in imaginary, mythical entities
is an ultimately wasteful use of one's mental faculties.  
It's part of the smoke and mirrors raised by theists in
order to muddy the waters so as to avoid specifically
having to define their own religiosity, or their beliefs in
supernatural entities or paranormal phenomena.

     

[Dexta]

I've always been somewhat confused by the "lack of belief"/"believing there is not" distinction.

Russel's Teapot illustrates it quite well I think. I lack belief in the existence of a teapot orbiting Neptune. I also believe there is not a teapot orbiting Neptune.

Same goes for Gods - I believe there are none....indistinguishable in my mind from lacking belief is believing there is not.

[Cavebear]

This thread is in opposition to the similarly named thread, but in this one, I'd like to discuss what I think is the way most atheists think about themselves.  Put another way, tell me about atheism as defined as not believing.

I'll start:

I know people who have problems taking a position - they prefer to be non-committal.  If they were atheists, they would be what I am describing.

Further, I have known people who just can't decide what their position is.

I could go on.  So have at it.

Oh my, CapriMark1, you have fallen into a serious misunderstanding! Atheists are not generally "non-committal".

1. What you are describing is "agnostic" (which is a perfectly legitimate way to think about proof or lack of it regarding a deity). It just means "I don't know".

2. I don't want to start a definition war (been there, done that), but "atheism" means to me that one has gone beyond "agnostic" to where "actual proof of an extant deity" is required by testable evidence. I agree the difference may be subtle, but basically, the agnostic uncertainty is switched to an actual demand of "proof of claim" by theists.

3. I don't want to repeat too much. But I like my campfire analogy. Theism had to come first. And it was created without any evidence. Logically, no person ever suddenly stood up and said "I'm an atheist" before someone claimed to be a theist first. And no one has ever provided any actual evidence of a deity from the first clan to the present day.

4. I understand "faith" in there being a deity. Many people have faith. But faith is a trust in a belief that can't be proven. An agnostic says "maybe". An atheist says "show me a single fact".

I hope that helps.

[pattylt]

As an atheist, I not only reject the “god” hypothesis, I reject all supernatural claims until evidence shows otherwise.

I was a theist. It’s not so much that I rejected it as that I lost the belief. It was gradual at first and then complete.

[Dānu]

[The Paladin]

Atheism to me means that there isn't sufficient evidence to convince me that omnipotent beings exist. There's plenty of evidence to support the idea that man created these beings and many are copies of others and people mostly believe what they are taught as children. Our imaginative brain allows for such ideas. With a simpler brain, I doubt we would think of such things.

[brewerb]

Atheism to me means that there isn't sufficient evidence to convince me that omnipotent beings exist.  There's plenty of evidence to support the idea that man created these beings and many are copies of others and people mostly believe what they are taught as children.  Our imaginative brain allows for such ideas.  With a simpler brain, I doubt we would think of such things.

You just killed Santa!

[Cavebear]

Atheism to me means that there isn't sufficient evidence to convince me that omnipotent beings exist.  There's plenty of evidence to support the idea that man created these beings and many are copies of others and people mostly believe what they are taught as children.  Our imaginative brain allows for such ideas.  With a simpler brain, I doubt we would think of such things.

Yeah, my cats don't worry about a God Of Mousies.  And regarding humans, it is nearly impossible to get past Google's preference for automatic listing of support for Jesus vs discussions of similarities with Mithra, so it is very difficult to find anything to quote.  Even when there are some comparisons, it is Christian and refers to followers of Mithra as cult or supposedly.  

Given that Christians worked very hard to overlay their holidays and beliefs over previous religions, it does get difficult.  Mithra was said to have been born on December 25, so of course the Christians had to have Jesus born on the same date.  And December 25th was (by some calendars) the Winter Solstice, so they were co-opting other religious views too.  

It causes me some nausea to have to treat biblical references as facts, but nothing in the bible gives a date or even a year of Jesus's birth.  Paul's own best guess for the true date of Jesus' birth is somewhere in September, based on a complex set of calculations related to the birth of John the Baptist, also mentioned in Luke.  And  he shepherds were in the fields tending their flocks, a sign of mild weather, so he thought maybe September.

There are so many inconsistencies in the bible it makes the mind spin.  I feel "uncle" even referring to them.

Noah wasn't the first guy to experience a flood.  The Epic of Gilgamesh contains ancient references to a great flood similar to that of Noah.  There is more information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth, And even that came from an older tale called the Epic of Atra-Hasis.  Personally, I think it all came from when the Mediterranean Sea overflowed to create the Black Sea, but maybe that is just me.  

The point of all this is that christian beliefs are almost all based on previous beliefs and nothing factual is based on any of them.

[mordant]

I've always been somewhat confused by the "lack of belief"/"believing there is not" distinction.

Russel's Teapot illustrates it quite well I think. I lack belief in the existence of a teapot orbiting Neptune. I also believe there is not a teapot orbiting Neptune.

Same goes for Gods - I believe there are none....indistinguishable in my mind from lacking belief is believing there is not.

There's no practical difference. I live my life exactly AS IF I positively disbelieved in any gods.

I mostly evolved the technical argument about not being able to literally state "there are no gods" because it was fashionable in the past (haven't heard it so much lately) for theists to say that atheism is arrogant, a declaration of gnosis when no one has been everywhere and everywhen. Maybe god was hiding under a rug in some closet somewhere that I failed to look in. I just was unwilling to give them any purchase with that argument, although it is, itself, a silly argument. It just takes the "arrogant atheist" charge off the table, or should. Some of them reflexively persist in it, anyway. But I find that it usually allows the discussion to focus on something other than some ad hominem directed at me personally.

[pattylt]

You know, any of the gods, if real, could just show up and prove it.

[The Paladin]

The point of all this is that christian beliefs are almost all based on previous beliefs and nothing factual is based on any of them.

I think this is the foundation point.  Religions influence one another in many ways; none of them develop in a vacuum.  This is extremely clear if you study history, religion and culture.  Christians tend to ignore the historical aspect to nearly everything.

[The Paladin]

Actually, I've always wondered what animals think about their existence. We continue to accumulate more evidence of intelligence in animals and it just makes me wonder what's going on in their heads.

[no one]

I have zero issues stating godibois are make believe.

Now, is it possible that there is "something" beyond all this? Yes. But whatever it is, if it is anything at all, is far, far, far, beyond the comprehension of the insignificant, miniscule hooman brain. Rendering the obviously hooman constructed godibois as pure fantasy.

[Rhythmcs]

You know, any of the gods, if real, could just show up and prove it.

Oddly enough, that's us saddling gods et al with christiania.  Maybe they can't.  Maybe that's something they can't do.  If they do exist...then it's clearly something they can't do.  Food for thought.

[Szuchow]

I do not believe in gods as there is not even tiniest shred of evidence for their existence; god is a garage dragon. In addition I think that faith is absurd and dangerous and I abhorto it in general - I'm opposite of a fideist.

[brewerb]

You know, any of the gods, if real, could just show up and prove it.

Oddly enough, that's us saddling gods et al with christiania.  Maybe they can't.  Maybe that's something they can't do.  If they do exist...then it's clearly something they can't do.  Food for thought.

The abrahamic god(s) believers claim that 'it' has done it in the past, several times. Considering all of the claimed attributes why should 2 to 6 thousand years (more or less) make a difference to a god?

[SYZ]

Well, I've been around for 29,000 days, and not
during one of those days has God popped up and
said "Hello mate, how are you?"

What an antisocial arsehole!     

[brewerb]

Well, I've been around for 29,000 days, and not
during one of those days has God popped up and
said "Hello mate, how are you?"

What an antisocial arsehole!     

His messengers are everywhere and they claim that they, and it, personally love you,............ for a small donation.

[halotaurusnova]

It’s not about taking a non-committal stance, it's just not buying into the whole god thing. Some folks are atheists because they don’t find evidence convincing enough to believe in a god, while others just don’t feel the need for a religious belief. Personally, I’ve met people who became atheists after a lot of questioning and seeking, while others just grew up without religious influence and never felt the need to adopt a belief.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I've been around for 29,000 days, and not
during one of those days has God popped up and
said "Hello mate, how are you?"

What an antisocial arsehole!     

Have you considered a different deodorant?

[Rhythmcs]

Oddly enough, that's us saddling gods et al with christiania.  Maybe they can't.  Maybe that's something they can't do.  If they do exist...then it's clearly something they can't do.  Food for thought.

The abrahamic god(s) believers claim that 'it' has done it in the past, several times. Considering all of the claimed attributes why should 2 to 6 thousand years (more or less) make a difference to a god?

More bad facts - the real trouble for seriously considering the god proposition.  Supposing gods did do it once, then we require yet another explanation of their apparent inability.  My not being able to fly is a relatively simple explanation compared to my not being able to fly despite there being pictures of me zipping around the cathedral in my youth.

[Rhythmcs]

It’s not about taking a non-committal stance, it's just not buying into the whole god thing. Some folks are atheists because they don’t find evidence convincing enough to believe in a god, while others just don’t feel the need for a religious belief. Personally, I’ve met people who became atheists after a lot of questioning and seeking, while others just grew up without religious influence and never felt the need to adopt a belief.

Even with it, in some circumstances especially because of it.  The reason that the nuts have been pulling the fire alarm about orthodoxy now, after a solid 50 years of satisfying themselves with orthopraxy...is their credible belief that mixed faith (and mixed race..though this is often redundant) families have a tendency to produce offspring that fail to strongly identify with or espouse belief in a given religions beliefs or principles.  They're correctly perceived as an engine of dechristianization within and around us christianity.

[brewerb]

The abrahamic god(s) believers claim that 'it' has done it in the past, several times. Considering all of the claimed attributes why should 2 to 6 thousand years (more or less) make a difference to a god?

More bad facts - the real trouble for seriously considering the god proposition.  Supposing gods did do it once, then we require yet another explanation of their apparent inability.  My not being able to fly is a relatively simple explanation compared to my not being able to fly despite there being pictures of me zipping around the cathedral in my youth.

There are no 'facts' when it comes to religions.