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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I could give a fuck about religion. Rarely empinges on me. Some of my rels tried to push me on it. When they healed they were wiser. The ones that did heal.

[Whateverist]

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

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

Had a half golden, half lab.  She was great started out darker than any shadow finished over 16 nearly white.  Sophie was my first life time dog, I've had five more of that class since then.

Still a pup laying in front of our older Dalmatian (ADD to the max).



At 15:  

[Whateverist]

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

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

Had a half golden, half lab.  She was great started out darker than any shadow finished over 16 nearly white.  Sophie was my first life time dog, I've had five more of that class since then.

Still a pup laying in front of our older Dalmatian (ADD to the max).



At 15:  

[emjay]

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.

That and though I vaguely understand Whateverist's argument separating between two different uses of the word 'belief', as it seems very similar to another argument, also ironically made by an agnostic, on AF; that there is belief in terms of what you believe is true or false, ie as related to knowledge, but also, and separately, belief in terms of what you believe in in the sense of community, belonging, principles etc. Don't get me wrong, I do very much value the sense of community and belonging I'm now getting from regularly going to actual Buddhist meetings, but it... that second use of the word belief... nonetheless will always be secondary at the most to me... what will always be the most important to me as an atheist is belief in relation to knowledge, and that's even more the case when thinking about life and death more, after the op for instance.

[Whateverist]

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.

That and though I vaguely understand Whateverist's argument separating between two different uses of the word 'belief', as it seems very similar to another argument, also ironically made by an agnostic, on AF; that there is belief in terms of what you believe is true or false, ie as related to knowledge, but also, and separately, belief in terms of what you believe in in the sense of community, belonging, principles etc. Don't get me wrong, I do very much value the sense of community and belonging I'm now getting from regularly going to actual Buddhist meetings, but it... that second use of the word belief... nonetheless will always be secondary at the most to me... what will always be the most important to me as an atheist is belief in relation to knowledge, and that's even more the case when thinking about life and death more, after the op for instance.

Another agnostic?  I wonder who the other sane thoughtful member is.  

[Whateverist]

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.

First I have no destination in mind toward which I wish to herd anyone.  I leave that to my dog.

Second it isn't at all clear that what I bolded is true.  You would think, since they try so hard pin down what they believe in doctrine, that they would believe all the same stuff.  But I find there is a world of difference between them nonetheless.  That isn't meant as a positive statement about their camp, just an observation.  Same as the areas of conformity I find among atheists online, just another observation.

[SYZ]

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'm guessing because religion has a much higher profile and
overall societal influence in the United States—in comparison
with its far less obvious effects (if any) on the wider Australian
society—it's an interesting observation that it's illegal to door
knock here for commercial sales and/or with religious intentions,
IE: flogging the product.

I've not been shanghaied by any religious fruitcakes for decades
now;  it simply doesn't happen downunder any more.  Thankfully!

Can I ask how many times you been confronted by religious
salespeople, and where in particular; front door, shopping malls,
parks, the sidewalk etc?  And what, precisely, do you mean by them
attempting to "convert" you?

[emjay]

That and though I vaguely understand Whateverist's argument separating between two different uses of the word 'belief', as it seems very similar to another argument, also ironically made by an agnostic, on AF; that there is belief in terms of what you believe is true or false, ie as related to knowledge, but also, and separately, belief in terms of what you believe in in the sense of community, belonging, principles etc. Don't get me wrong, I do very much value the sense of community and belonging I'm now getting from regularly going to actual Buddhist meetings, but it... that second use of the word belief... nonetheless will always be secondary at the most to me... what will always be the most important to me as an atheist is belief in relation to knowledge, and that's even more the case when thinking about life and death more, after the op for instance.

Another agnostic?  I wonder who the other sane thoughtful member is.  

I'm never quite sure whether you're supposed to quote other people's usernames from other forums, but I suppose there's no problem with it? The guy I'm talking about calls himself Belacqua, and is not hugely popular on there I have to say, but from what you've said it sounds to me like you and he would get on very well. Because frankly I've never heard that sort of 'two belief types' argument put forward by anyone except you two, and it sounds a very similar argument, and he too is into poetry, art, literature and all that sort of thing, and in God terms, Dante, Plato, Aristotle etc. So yeah, I think you and he might get on very well if you joined AF again, but even if you don't rejoin you might just enjoy reading his posts on there

[Whateverist]

Another agnostic?  I wonder who the other sane thoughtful member is.  

I'm never quite sure whether you're supposed to quote other people's usernames from other forums, but I suppose there's no problem with it? The guy I'm talking about calls himself Belacqua, and is not hugely popular on there I have to say, but from what you've said it sounds to me like you and he would get on very well. Because frankly I've never heard that sort of 'two belief types' argument put forward by anyone except you two, and it sounds a very similar argument, and he too is into poetry, art, literature and all that sort of thing, and in God terms, Dante, Plato, Aristotle etc. So yeah, I think you and he might get on very well if you joined AF again, but even if you don't rejoin you might just enjoy reading his posts on there

Thanks.  Perhaps I'll try sending him a PM here as a start.  I have not tribe but occasionally I come across a fellow misfit.

Edited to say I just checked at AF and found I was the second person to rep that user there. Vulcanlogicin did too as well as LadyForCamus, another name that rings a bell. But I have no interest in that place and am not willing to hang out there.

[SYZ]

...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?

I had to look up BioLogos, and was somewhat nonplussed when I read this
ill-informed drivel from their site:

      "We help people explore, embody, and delight in the harmony
      between faith and science, so they can draw deeper into love
      of God and all God has created...

      In this complicated age, faith and science can help us find meaning.
      Together, they deepen both our understanding of the world and our
      wonder at its Creator".

Science and religion have NO compatibility whatsoever.   

The grandly-named BioLogos Foundation is a Christian advocacy group
that supports the view that God created the world using evolution of
different species as the mechanism. It was established in 2007 by the
highly accredited and sometimes scientist Francis Collins.

[Whateverist]

...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?

I had to look up BioLogos, and was somewhat nonplussed when I read this
ill-informed drivel from their site:

      "We help people explore, embody, and delight in the harmony
      between faith and science, so they can draw deeper into love
      of God and all God has created...

      In this complicated age, faith and science can help us find meaning.
      Together, they deepen both our understanding of the world and our
      wonder at its Creator".

Science and religion have NO compatibility whatsoever.   

The grandly-named BioLogos Foundation is a Christian advocacy group
that supports the view that God created the world using evolution of
different species as the mechanism. It was established in 2007 by the
highly accredited and sometimes scientist Francis Collins.

I have to disagree.  Neither can be derived from the other but that just means they are complimentary rather than in competition.  Of course people can disagree about such things but I don't accept your drivel that their mission statement is drivel.  They accept common descent and every other aspect of evolution and science; I would prefer a world where more Christians were so accepting.

Of course when they write  "We help people explore, embody, and delight in the harmony between faith and science" their target audience is other Christians.  While they don't pretend to have anything of value for atheists there are two regular posters who are godless as well as agnostic me.  They do have a civility requirement but they don't condone proselytizing.

[Whateverist]

I just refuse to accept that there is any necessary atheist doctrine. The idea that science and religion must be in conflict is absurd.

[SYZ]

I had to look up BioLogos, and was somewhat nonplussed when I read this
ill-informed drivel from their site:

      "We help people explore, embody, and delight in the harmony
      between faith and science, so they can draw deeper into love
      of God and all God has created...

      In this complicated age, faith and science can help us find meaning.
      Together, they deepen both our understanding of the world and our
      wonder at its Creator".

Science and religion have NO compatibility whatsoever.   

The grandly-named BioLogos Foundation is a Christian advocacy group
that supports the view that God created the world using evolution of
different species as the mechanism. It was established in 2007 by the
highly accredited and sometimes scientist Francis Collins.

I have to disagree.  Neither can be derived from the other but that just means they are complimentary rather than in competition.  Of course people can disagree about such things but I don't accept your drivel that their mission statement is drivel.  They accept common descent and every other aspect of evolution and science; I would prefer a world where more Christians were so accepting.

Of course when they write  "We help people explore, embody, and delight in the harmony between faith and science" their target audience is other Christians.  While they don't pretend to have anything of value for atheists there are two regular posters who are godless as well as agnostic me.  They do have a civility requirement but they don't condone proselytizing.

I'm guessing you dislike my comments (drivel? thank you) about
the BioLogos site opinions for a couple of reasons.  To start with
you define yourself as an "agnostic" which means, in effect, you
can't make up your mind one way or the other as to the real-world
existence—or otherwise—of supernatural entities or paranormal
phenomena.  And in my opinion fence-sitters often lack the courage
of their convictions.

Presumably as an educated, articulate individual, you have no belief
in the existence of unicorns or leprechauns.  Despite of course being
unable to disprove their existence one way or the other.  Just like gods.

And even accepting—as I too acknowledge—that the content of BioLogos
is targetted primarily at other/any Christians, it would behove them to
at the very least not make blatantly, unsupported, erroneous claims
about science (as per my original bolding).

That they claim a congruity of religion and science is rejected by each and
every atheist as an absolute truth globally.  I'm also guessing you don't
appear to fully appreciate what atheism is, or what constitutes being an
atheist.  

In fact, you seem from your comments here to be a cultural Christian, as
you invariably appear to give Christianity an easy pass.  Maybe an atheist
forum like this is not the best place for you to get feedback more suited to
your preconceived but unlived notions of atheism.

[Szuchow]

I just refuse to accept that there is any necessary atheist doctrine.  The idea that science and religion must be in conflict is absurd.

As long as religion will be making bullshit claims about reality it will be in conflict with science.

[brewerb]

I just refuse to accept that there is any necessary atheist doctrine.  The idea that science and religion must be in conflict is absurd.

Depends on what is being claimed. 'Creator' (see previous SYZ post) is pretty much a hard stop for me. 

After reading a few posts sounds like humanist/ism might need to be thrown in the discussion. I see that there's a religious humanist position also.

[Rizen]

Religion made sense thousands of years ago when people didn't have a good answer for how the world worked. But we have better methods now. We have science. I think it's possible for religious people to still believe in science but that requires a sort of cafeteria religious perspective. Picking and choosing what parts you believe and don't believe of religion. I've found these people choose to work with science in most cases but not question the parts of their religion they believe. As I say, they give it a pass. I'm a rationalist. My philosophy is that everything should be held to scientific standards and scrutiny. But when it comes to religious people I'll take what I can get.

I should clarify, there are two kinds of Christians: Liberal Christians who work with science, get vaccinated and vote democratic, who I have no problem with. Then there are the science denying Christian nationalist morons who currently control our country, who I hate.

[Whateverist]

Withdrawn to consider how to fix huge formatting errors. Later. Maybe.

[Whateverist]

I just refuse to accept that there is any necessary atheist doctrine.  The idea that science and religion must be in conflict is absurd.

As long as religion will be making bullshit claims about reality it will be in conflict with science.

Likewise as long as you'll be insisting religion is talking about physics or other science matters you can't help but talk bullshit.  Stay ignorant if you like.

[Whateverist]

Religion made sense thousands of years ago when people didn't have a good answer for how the world worked. But we have better methods now. We have science. I think it's possible for religious people to still believe in science but that requires a sort of cafeteria religious perspective. Picking and choosing what parts you believe and don't believe of religion. I've found these people choose to work with science in most cases but not question the parts of their religion they believe. As I say, they give it a pass. I'm a rationalist. My philosophy is that everything should be held to scientific standards and scrutiny. But when it comes to religious people I'll take what I can get.

I should clarify, there are two kinds of Christians: Liberal Christians who work with science, get vaccinated and vote democratic, who I have no problem with. Then there are the science denying Christian nationalist morons who currently control our country, who I hate.

This is exactly the same rigid ideas that I've read online for years from conformity bound atheists.  Science is not the best approach to every question and the modern point of view is poorer in many ways than what came before.

[Whateverist]

I just refuse to accept that there is any necessary atheist doctrine.  The idea that science and religion must be in conflict is absurd.

Depends on what is being claimed. 'Creator' (see previous SYZ post) is pretty much a hard stop for me. 

After reading a few posts sounds like humanist/ism might need to be thrown in the discussion. I see that there's a religious humanist position also.

Really?  What branch of science deals with 'creators'?  Science has nothing to say about it except those who lose discipline and spout their own opinion as if being a scientist in their day job had any relevance to what religion and the humanities deal with.  Krauss and Dawkins should be laughed out of their profession.

[Rizen]

the modern point of view is poorer in many ways than what came before.

Example?

PS
No one becomes a rationalist for conformity.

[Whateverist]

the modern point of view is poorer in many ways than what came before.

Example?

PS
No one becomes a rationalist for conformity.

First no one becomes a rationalist because we all naturally rationalize whatever opinions we already have.  It starts with only gathering evidence which supports you.  

Then, from my POV nearly every atheist you meet online absolutely conform.  Why?  Because just like fundy Christians they crave certainty.

[Dānu]

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. …

A recent post on X brought this to mind. The poster said that Trump had corrected the fake news, and ended with, "I trust Trump." This seems less a literal declaration than a declaration of allegiance, that the person will believe in Trump regardless of what other sources might say, and, perhaps more crucially, that one's commitment to Trump is unwavering.It isn't about who is telling the truth, as Trump has a documented penchant for bending it, it is a political alignment. It's the same with statements that Trump is truthful and doesn't lie. Though it brings up a related point that one of the key elements of fascism is a shared unreality. In this we see that these statements refer to a commitment to that alternate reality, even if it differs with recognized truth. This is not far from the statement that, "I believe in God," in which one is affirming a commitment to that reality, that alternative to mundane fact.

[Rizen]

Example?

PS
No one becomes a rationalist for conformity.

First no one becomes a rationalist because we all naturally rationalize whatever opinions we already have.  It starts with only gathering evidence which supports you.  

Then, from my POV nearly every atheist you meet online absolutely conform.  Why?  Because just like fundy Christians they crave certainty.

Where'd that come from? I asked you a really softball question, just to give a simple example. If you hadn't noticed, there are a lot more religious people than atheists. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/201...cape-exec/
(It should be noted that not all unaffiliated people are atheists or agnostic.)

Claiming atheists are conformist is like claiming someone decided to become a Jew due to their vast religious influence in the world.

[SYZ]

Religion made sense thousands of years ago when people didn't have a good answer for how the world worked. But we have better methods now. We have science. I think it's possible for religious people to still believe in science but that requires a sort of cafeteria religious perspective. Picking and choosing what parts you believe and don't believe of religion. I've found these people choose to work with science in most cases but not question the parts of their religion they believe. As I say, they give it a pass. I'm a rationalist. My philosophy is that everything should be held to scientific standards and scrutiny. But when it comes to religious people I'll take what I can get.

I should clarify, there are two kinds of Christians: Liberal Christians who work with science, get vaccinated and vote democratic, who I have no problem with. Then there are the science denying Christian nationalist morons who currently control our country, who I hate.

This is exactly the same rigid ideas that I've read online for years from conformity bound atheists.  Science is not the best approach to every question and the modern point of view is poorer in many ways than what came before.

Even you, a soft Christian, would have to accept that the sciences
provide a far, far more accurate, representative, and empirical set of
answers that describe the nature of the world we live, the cosmos,
and... well... just about everything.

The mythical events described in the Bible, its misrepresentations,
its dissimulation, its duplicity and its blatant lies have not, and do not
provide anything of worth in a scientifically-enlightened 21st century.

And of course science has "nothing to say" about "creators" simply
because there is zero evidence supporting that silly notion—one which
you apparently seem to think is a distinct possibility.  In fact I've noted
from most of your comments here show a definite and confrontational
pro-Christian bias (for some unknown reason).     Care to explain that?

BTW, there is no such thing as a "conformity bound" atheist—which simply
proves you have little understanding of what atheism is all about. Atheism
per se is nothing more than a state of mind, like being happy or fearful
or sad.  

Religion on the other hand is bound by doctrine and dogma.   End of story.