Is it still possible to be a non believer without also being a partisan?

[Whateverist]

I am one such.  I don't believe in supernatural entities but I don't insist that no one else should either.  Spreading the light of my own biases would be no better than William Craig doing the same.

We are all on this earth figuring out who we are, what the world is and what really matters.  No one already has all the answers.  At most we have ones we are content with.  But a worldview is not the kind of thing everyone will adopt once they have enough facts.  I like Plato's allusion which apparently he took from Plutarch:

The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.
Credit: Plutarch
The above quotation is a popular contraction of what Plutarch actually said, here is a translation of the original text in context.

The correct analogy for the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting — no more — and then it motivates one towards originality and instills the desire for truth.

Suppose someone were to go and ask his neighbors for fire and find a substantial blaze there, and just stay there continually warming himself:

that is no different from someone who goes to someone else to get to some of his rationality, and fails to realize that he ought to ignite his own flame, his own intellect,

but is happy to sit entranced by the lecture, and the words trigger only associative thinking and bring, as it were, only a flush to his cheeks and a glow to his limbs; but he has not dispelled or dispersed, in the warm light of philosophy, the internal dank gloom of his mind.

Source

[Dānu]

I'm skeptical of the idea of a flesh and blood deity, but I enjoy the multifaceted nature of religion, from the intricacies of theology and apologia to the art and storytelling and mythical aspects.

[brewerb]

My lack of belief doesn't come with a spread the word, convert or judge directive. It would be great if theirs didn't either. 

Occasionally I run into some that can't/won't be ignored.

[emjay]

I'm skeptical of the idea of a flesh and blood deity, but I enjoy the multifaceted nature of religion, from the intricacies of theology and apologia to the art and storytelling and mythical aspects.

I may have this completely wrong, but lately my understanding of Hinduism has been that somehow Gods are personifications in Hindu meditation... so not thought of as Gods per se but rather as a sort of personification of God traits/aspects in meditation, and with many different personifications available, ie many different Gods, that appeal to different people for different reasons, so people focus on the God personifications they find most appealing or most identify with etc in meditation. Does what I'm saying make any sense? I have to say, if that is true, I'd find it quite an interesting and appealing aspect of Hinduism, in that somehow injecting personality/personification into meditation sounds like it could be very interesting.

I mean, I don't know if you're interested in and/or practice Hindu meditation?... I assumed you were - and that's the only reason I suggested that book on meditation the other day - since I assumed meditation goes hand in hand with Hinduism, but maybe I'm wrong on that too? But you've mentioned Kali before, and I was just wondering really if that was a Hindu God that you identified with or otherwise found inspiring, and meditated with a kind of personification of it in mind? In my case I'm perfectly happy to imagine the presence of the Buddha in my meditations sometimes... I mean I know that's not quite the same thing, but nonetheless meditating on entities, ie people or personifications, does have its place.

[SYZ]

I am one such.  I don't believe in supernatural entities but I don't insist that no one else should either. Spreading the light of my own biases would be no better than William Craig doing the same...

Naturally enough as a lifelong atheist, I too do not believe
in supernatural entities or paranormal phenomena.

But I don't consider that personal stance to be any way any
sort of limiting "bias".  A statement of absolute truth should
never be considered biassed.

In a recent interview discussing his new book In Quest of the Historical Adam,
philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig acknowledged his biased
assumptions when interpreting how the words of the Bible should be understood.

                      —Institute for Creation Research, Acts & Facts, 30 November 2021.

[Dānu]

I'm skeptical of the idea of a flesh and blood deity, but I enjoy the multifaceted nature of religion, from the intricacies of theology and apologia to the art and storytelling and mythical aspects.

I may have this completely wrong, but lately my understanding of Hinduism has been that somehow Gods are personifications in Hindu meditation... so not thought of as Gods per se but rather as a sort of personification of God traits/aspects in meditation, and with many different personifications available, ie many different Gods, that appeal to different people for different reasons, so people focus on the God personifications they find most appealing or most identify with etc in meditation. Does what I'm saying make any sense? I have to say, if that is true, I'd find it quite an interesting and appealing aspect of Hinduism, in that somehow injecting personality/personification into meditation sounds like it could be very interesting.

I mean, I don't know if you're interested in and/or practice Hindu meditation?... I assumed you were - and that's the only reason I suggested that book on meditation the other day - since I assumed meditation goes hand in hand with Hinduism, but maybe I'm wrong on that too? But you've mentioned Kali before, and I was just wondering really if that was a Hindu God that you identified with or otherwise found inspiring, and meditated with a kind of personification of it in mind? In my case I'm perfectly happy to imagine the presence of the Buddha in my meditations sometimes... I mean I know that's not quite the same thing, but nonetheless meditating on entities, ie people or personifications, does have its place.

Different schools have more or less abstract understandings of the gods. I cleave to the Samkhiya school which is among the more abstract. I tend to be a lazy Hindu

[emjay]

I generally don't think of many atheists as being 'partisan', even strong anti-theists, because I could never imagine them going door to door handing out leaflets, like a Jehovah's Witness might do, trying to convert people. So in my opinion it's rarely a case of actively trying to 'convert' theists to atheism but rather just defending against their attempts to convert you, which happens with some religions more than others, but in my experience it's mainly Christianity and other forms of it, that has that drive, and I find it very annoying and frustrating when I'm on the receiving end of it.

[emjay]

I may have this completely wrong, but lately my understanding of Hinduism has been that somehow Gods are personifications in Hindu meditation... so not thought of as Gods per se but rather as a sort of personification of God traits/aspects in meditation, and with many different personifications available, ie many different Gods, that appeal to different people for different reasons, so people focus on the God personifications they find most appealing or most identify with etc in meditation. Does what I'm saying make any sense? I have to say, if that is true, I'd find it quite an interesting and appealing aspect of Hinduism, in that somehow injecting personality/personification into meditation sounds like it could be very interesting.

I mean, I don't know if you're interested in and/or practice Hindu meditation?... I assumed you were - and that's the only reason I suggested that book on meditation the other day - since I assumed meditation goes hand in hand with Hinduism, but maybe I'm wrong on that too? But you've mentioned Kali before, and I was just wondering really if that was a Hindu God that you identified with or otherwise found inspiring, and meditated with a kind of personification of it in mind? In my case I'm perfectly happy to imagine the presence of the Buddha in my meditations sometimes... I mean I know that's not quite the same thing, but nonetheless meditating on entities, ie people or personifications, does have its place.

Different schools have more or less abstract understandings of the gods.  I cleave to the Samkhiya school which is among the more abstract.  I tend to be a lazy Hindu

Okay I'll look into that Samkhiya school, just out of curiosity... thanks for the info

[Dexta]

I say no: my atheism is a stern, severe, profound, awesome and thus partisan position. Then again, one person's "partisan" is another person's "innocuous opinion."

[SYZ]

I'm thinking that the term "non believer" doesn’t attempt
to accurately or concisely define what an atheist actually
is.  To be a non believer, technically, one has to accept that
the entity one purportedly disbelieves in exists in the first
place.  And gods simply do not exist.  That'd be tantamount
to also claiming I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns,
which would be silly and immaterial anyway.

Many atheists prefer not to use this particular word, because
people who do not believe in gods do, of course, hold many
other beliefs—about the nature of reality, about how we should
be living, and about how we should treat other people.

If I were to say to a theist that I was a (so-called) non
believer, then that would simply reinforce and reassure them
of their own absurd beliefs having the necessary substance to
attract public disbelief.

[Whateverist]

My lack of belief doesn't come with a spread the word, convert or judge directive. It would be great if theirs didn't either. 

Occasionally I run into some that can't/won't be ignored.

Good, me neither.  I feel for you.  Where I am I rarely encounter anyone in RL who even admits to adhering to a traditional faith position.  But I assume their carping is unpleasant as it is online.  During the years of my sabbatical on BioLogos I encountered two individuals who were that obnoxious but only just above them was another level who were obviously bent out of shape and offended on God's behalf.  And others who would never like one of my posts or post in a thread I started, perhaps for fear of losing their happy place ticket?

But I also know from there that there are others who don't feel that way and are embarrassed by those who do.  A few I consider good friends and have invited to stop by if they are ever in my neck of the woods.  Among my wife's friends are a couple who are into Avata Vedanta and another who is Jewish, while my wife is just plain an atheist and not interested in any discussion on religion. That has really come out in a recent thread on this substack article by David Bentley Hart titled Confessions of an Irreligious Christian.

[Dexta]

I think ur an Xtian attempting to infiltrate this bastion of logic, reason and thus atheism. I don't care how lush the Collie is in your profile pic. You do not belong here Whateverist.

[Whateverist]

I'm thinking that the term "non believer" doesn’t attempt
to accurately or concisely define what an atheist actually
is.  To be a non believer, technically, one has to accept that
the entity one purportedly disbelieves in exists in the first
place.  And gods simply do not exist.  That'd be tantamount
to also claiming I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns,
which would be silly and immaterial anyway.

Many atheists prefer not to use this particular word, because
people who do not believe in gods do, of course, hold many
other beliefs—about the nature of reality, about how we should
be living, and about how we should treat other people.

If I were to say to a theist that I was a (so-called) non
believer, then that would simply reinforce and reassure them
of their own absurd beliefs having the necessary substance to
attract public disbelief.

I agree with almost all of this.  I too think everyone is a believer in something though many are unaware of what they believe in.  

Formerly I thought "believe in" was a twisted construction, that all that mattered was what one "believed that".  But no longer.  Now I realize even reductive materialists believe in the law of the excluded middle and often in adequacy of science to decide all matters.  Some also think language is able to express all truths.  I don't believe any of that.

My new take on "believing in" comes from my favorite nonfiction writer Iain McGilchrist's first important book, The Master and His Emissary. Here is what he says about belief there:

Believing is not to be reduced to thinking that such-and-such might be the case. It is not a weaker form of thinking, laced with doubt. Sometimes we speak like this: ‘I believe that the train leaves at 6:13’, where ‘I believe that’ simply means that ‘I think (but am not certain that’. Since the left hemisphere is concerned with what is certain, with knowledge of the facts, its version of belief is that it is just absence of certainty. If the facts were certain, according to its view, I should be able to say ‘I know that’ instead. This view of belief comes from the left hemisphere’s dispositions toward the world: interest in what is useful, therefore fixed and certain (the train timetable is no good if one can’t rely on it). So belief is just a feeble form of knowledge.

But belief in terms of the right hemisphere is different, because its disposition towards the world is different. The right hemisphere does not ‘know’ anything, in the sense of certain knowledge. For it, belief is a matter of care: it describes a relationship, where there is a calling and an answering, the root concept of ‘responsibility’. Thus if I say that ‘I believe in you’, it does not mean that I think such-and-such things are the case about you, but can’t be certain I am right. It means that I stand in a certain relationship of care towards you, that entails me behaving (acting and being) towards you, and entails on you certain ways of acting and being as well. it is an ‘acting as if’ certain things were true about you that in the nature of things cannot be certain. … I think this is what Wittgenstein was trying to express when he wrote that ‘my’ attitude towards the other is an attitude towards a soul. I am not of the opinion that he has a soul. An ‘opinion’ would be a weak form of knowledge: that is not what is meant by a belief, a disposition or an ‘attitude’.

This helps illuminate belief in God. This is not reducible to a factual answer to the question ‘does God exist?’ … It is having an attitude, holding a disposition to the world, whereby that world, as it comes into being for me, is one in which God belongs. The belief alters the world but also alters me. … One cannot believe in nothing and thus avoid belief altogether, simply because one cannot have no disposition toward the world at all, that being in itself a disposition. Some people believe in materialism, they act ‘as if’ such a philosophy were true. …

[Whateverist]

I think ur an Xtian attempting to infiltrate this bastion of logic, reason and thus atheism. I don't care how lush the Collie is in your profile pic. You do not belong here Whateverist.

Probably true that I don't have enough in common with you to belong anywhere that you think you belong.  I'm actually here to make as good an effort to understand what die in the wool atheists believe.  As I expected there are kindreds spirits in every demographic along with plenty of bad apples.  But I am not here to fix anyone up or change what they believe.

[Rizen]

I find it obnoxious and rude when religious people try to convert me and imagine they would feel the same the other way around. The key to ending religion is education. The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand religions doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't tell people what to believe if it conflicts with their preexisting beliefs. People have to make the transition naturally.

[Dānu]

I think ur an Xtian attempting to infiltrate this bastion of logic, reason and thus atheism. I don't care how lush the Collie is in your profile pic. You do not belong here Whateverist.

I can vouch for Whateverist. I've known him a long time.

[Whateverist]

I find it obnoxious and rude when religious people try to convert me and imagine they would feel the same the other way around. The key to ending religion is education. The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand religions doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't tell people what to believe if it conflicts with their preexisting beliefs. People have to make the transition naturally.

I find it rude when anyone presumes to convert anyone else.  But I'm uninterested in ending religion.  Why would I do that when it obviously means a lot to many people.  I'm not a big fan of rap or metal but I am on no mission to do away with them.

But I would have said:  The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand that religions are not about things.  

[Rizen]

I find it obnoxious and rude when religious people try to convert me and imagine they would feel the same the other way around. The key to ending religion is education. The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand religions doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't tell people what to believe if it conflicts with their preexisting beliefs. People have to make the transition naturally.

I find it rude when anyone presumes to convert anyone else.  But I'm uninterested in ending religion.  Why would I do that when it obviously means a lot to many people.  I'm not a big fan of rap or metal but I am on no mission to do away with them.

But I would have said:  The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand that religions are not about things.  

I've become very anti-theist since president rapist took over. The key difference between religion and science is science is an ever changing map of how the universe works based on research and discoveries. If a scientific fact no longer adds up and you can offer conclusive proof, change it. Religion, on the other hand, teaches things that don't make sense as absolute fact that shouldn't be questioned. This sets a very dangerous precedent. Furthermore, religions like Christianity here in the US teach that it's better to be a good Christian than a good person. In Christian theology, the foundational prerequisite for entering heaven is faith in Jesus Christ. 80% of Trump's voters were Christian. It doesn't matter than he is a convicted felon or rapist, as long as he's pushing Christianity they'll support him. I directly blame Christianity for the mess our country is in.

[emjay]

I find it obnoxious and rude when religious people try to convert me and imagine they would feel the same the other way around. The key to ending religion is education. The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand religions doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't tell people what to believe if it conflicts with their preexisting beliefs. People have to make the transition naturally.

In my case it was very very unwelcome, when many people around me were trying to convert me to Christianity after my op. I mean I know they meant well, but nonetheless all it did was add to my pain and discomfort, and also led to much angry argument, basically because we have very different conceptions of the Christian God. Obviously I don't believe in it but if I did, what they see as a loving, forgiving God, I see as an unjust, tyrannical God, so to have people constantly waving that in my face while I was trying to get better was mentally very unpleasant.

[brewerb]

I think ur an Xtian attempting to infiltrate this bastion of logic, reason and thus atheism. I don't care how lush the Collie is in your profile pic. You do not belong here Whateverist.

Probably true that I don't have enough in common with you to belong anywhere that you think you belong.  I'm actually here to make as good an effort to understand what die in the wool atheists believe.  As I expected there are kindreds spirits in every demographic along with plenty of bad apples.  But I am not here to fix anyone up or change what they believe.

Ya drunk again Dexta?

FYI, he had (maybe still has) a problem with my avatar also.

[Whateverist]

Probably true that I don't have enough in common with you to belong anywhere that you think you belong.  I'm actually here to make as good an effort to understand what die in the wool atheists believe.  As I expected there are kindreds spirits in every demographic along with plenty of bad apples.  But I am not here to fix anyone up or change what they believe.

Ya drunk again Dexta?

FYI, he had (maybe still has) a problem with my avatar also.

Haha, a dog hater huh?  That settles it.  We're through Dexta!

[brewerb]

Ya drunk again Dexta?

FYI, he had (maybe still has) a problem with my avatar also.

Haha, a dog hater huh?  That settles it.  We're through Dexta!

From what I can tell just hates any that aren't goldens.

[Whateverist]

I find it rude when anyone presumes to convert anyone else.  But I'm uninterested in ending religion.  Why would I do that when it obviously means a lot to many people.  I'm not a big fan of rap or metal but I am on no mission to do away with them.

But I would have said:  The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand that religions are not about things.  

I've become very anti-theist since president rapist took over. The key difference between religion and science is science is an ever changing map of how the universe works based on research and discoveries. If a scientific fact no longer adds up and you can offer conclusive proof, change it. Religion, on the other hand, teaches things that don't make sense as absolute fact that shouldn't be questioned. This sets a very dangerous precedent. Furthermore, religions like Christianity here in the US teach that it's better to be a good Christian than a good person. In Christian theology, the foundational prerequisite for entering heaven is faith in Jesus Christ. 80% of Trump's voters were Christian. It doesn't matter than he is a convicted felon or rapist, as long as he's pushing Christianity they'll support him. I directly blame Christianity for the mess our country is in.

I think many of us, at least those who are not narcissist pedophiles, are traumatized living through the reign of the orange one.  But of course "religion teaches things that don't make sense as absolute fact", it isn't a scientific field and is not concerned with the empirical.  You're entitled to blame who you like but the truth is people are not as rational as we would like and no where near as rational as they think they are.  Worse, the less they know about something, the more they are convinced of their own opinion.  We are a problematic species.

[Dānu]

I find it rude when anyone presumes to convert anyone else.  But I'm uninterested in ending religion.  Why would I do that when it obviously means a lot to many people.  I'm not a big fan of rap or metal but I am on no mission to do away with them.

But I would have said:  The more you understand how various things in the world work, the more you understand that religions are not about things.  

I've become very anti-theist since president rapist took over. The key difference between religion and science is science is an ever changing map of how the universe works based on research and discoveries. If a scientific fact no longer adds up and you can offer conclusive proof, change it. Religion, on the other hand, teaches things that don't make sense as absolute fact that shouldn't be questioned. This sets a very dangerous precedent. Furthermore, religions like Christianity here in the US teach that it's better to be a good Christian than a good person. In Christian theology, the foundational prerequisite for entering heaven is faith in Jesus Christ. 80% of Trump's voters were Christian. It doesn't matter than he is a convicted felon or rapist, as long as he's pushing Christianity they'll support him. I directly blame Christianity for the mess our country is in.

I think you can blame Obama for that. He created a good economy, which Trump coasted on, giving Trump a reputation for good economic judgment.

[Rhythmcs]

I'm actually here to make as good an effort to understand what die in the wool atheists believe. 

Herding cats kind of thing, isn't it?  There's less ideological conformity between atheists than theists.  This should be expected since atheism is a comment on what you don't believe, not anything that you do.