The Confused Athiest
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Not at all.
"God" is just a word. There are many different concepts attached to that word. Not all of them involve a human-centric sentience. Consider Pantheism, for example.
That's not what I mean when I use the word to describe my own stance. It's not What Dawkins means either, as far as I can tell, or most self-described atheists.pete said:
It's not always - or even usually - a matter of belief, believe it or not, much less disbelief. More often judgment, rather than belief, is more important. There are atheists who desperately want to believe ( "Oh Lord, help thou mine unbelief" ), or have strong feelings about belief for themselves otherwise, but they are a minority in general as far as my experience goes. They are conspicuous, of course, if the subject comes up.
Theists often restrict the word to rejection and active disbelief, usually for the purpose of trivializing the stance or making ad hominum arguments about what "atheists believe" - SAM is completely typical of this approach, on this forum, in that respect.
? The type is a crisis, atheists are that type, theists are that type (the examples indicate so), what ?SAM said:
Perhaps you've said this in a more general manner, "for all practical purposes", however, it needs some clarification because it is potentially misleading.
If being an ignostic would be a valid identification of self -and given that valid identifications of self do not cause distress and confusion-,
then calling oneself an ignostic would not cause distress and confusion. But it does. So being an ignostic cannot be a valid identification of self.
The problem with labels and identifying with them is that they claim to specify the "who one really is". If nothing else, we can intuit that most labels do not adequately specify the "who one really is".
Last edited:
In that case, one should not adopt a label that is distressful to oneself.
Isn't that what rejecting God is all about? Being able to separate oneself from those who do?
In and of itself it has no other merit. It offers nothing.
A typical response would be: okay, so what?
Isn't that what rejecting God is all about? Being able to separate oneself from those who do?
In and of itself it has no other merit. It offers nothing.
A typical response would be: okay, so what?
SAM:
As far as I can see, a person can be a cognitivist, by your definition, in agreeing that "God exists" is a proposition. But what if the person answers with "I don't know", rather than the options you provide: "Yes", "No", "I refuse to answer"?
Many atheists would say that they don't know if God exists or not, but they see no reason to believe in God because the evidence simply is not strong enough to justify such a belief.
Note that this is different from the position of the agnostic, because the agnostic says that the question of God's existence is by its nature unanswerable, whereas the weak atheist says simply that it is unanswered.
As far as I can see, a person can be a cognitivist, by your definition, in agreeing that "God exists" is a proposition. But what if the person answers with "I don't know", rather than the options you provide: "Yes", "No", "I refuse to answer"?
Many atheists would say that they don't know if God exists or not, but they see no reason to believe in God because the evidence simply is not strong enough to justify such a belief.
Note that this is different from the position of the agnostic, because the agnostic says that the question of God's existence is by its nature unanswerable, whereas the weak atheist says simply that it is unanswered.
Dawkins says that he's agnostic about God to the same extent that he's agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden. A key theme of "The God Delusion" is that there is good reason to believe that God (the Abrahamic God, at least) does not exist.
Do you have any figures on the stance of self-described atheists? It would be interesting to know how far the change has progressed. What about the popular understanding of "atheist"? If someone says they are an atheist, what do people understand them to mean?
Hmm. We might be approaching a semantic debate about what "belief" means.
Here's [post=1169365]something I wrote in another thread[/post] a couple of years ago that might clear up what I think, if nothing else.
[The "lack of belief" ideology is] a backlash against people describing atheism as a religion.
The position of most atheists is less like "I don't know if Pete's shirt is blue", more like "I don't know if there is a pot of gold in my backyart", and possibly even more like "I believe that there is no pot of gold in my cupboard."
The belief in practice of an atheist, based on absence of evidence that should be evident is not like the belief in practice of most (not all) theists, based on parental and peer indoctrination and/or purely subjective evidence. But it is a common argument of theists that the atheist belief is like the theist belief. When the atheist in return declares a "lack of belief", they are denying a lack of belief of the theistic kind.
There are exceptions of course. Some atheists do in fact hold a fanatical dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this type are overrepresented in public discussions, and they will often deny their belief purely as an argumentative measure. For them, it's not about finding the truth, it's about justifying their existing belief.
The position of most atheists is less like "I don't know if Pete's shirt is blue", more like "I don't know if there is a pot of gold in my backyart", and possibly even more like "I believe that there is no pot of gold in my cupboard."
The belief in practice of an atheist, based on absence of evidence that should be evident is not like the belief in practice of most (not all) theists, based on parental and peer indoctrination and/or purely subjective evidence. But it is a common argument of theists that the atheist belief is like the theist belief. When the atheist in return declares a "lack of belief", they are denying a lack of belief of the theistic kind.
There are exceptions of course. Some atheists do in fact hold a fanatical dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this type are overrepresented in public discussions, and they will often deny their belief purely as an argumentative measure. For them, it's not about finding the truth, it's about justifying their existing belief.
I agree. But I'm not sure that redefining "atheism" is the right response. I'll think more about the distinction between "belief" and "judgment"... that could be a good approach.
Rejecting theism. You can't reject something that isn't there.
The reasons why a person labels themselves an atheist can be many.
1. There are people who call themselves atheists on the grounds that they claim to have unassailable arguments that God, as described by traditional theisms, does not exist.
2. There are even some people who indirectly or even directly claim to be equal to God, or better than God, and who proudly declare to be atheists.
3. There are people who are actually weak agnostics; but in effect, weak agnosticism and (weak) atheism are the same - so those people still call themselves atheists.
4. There are people who have a painful past with theism, for a number of reasons: be that abuse comitted against them "in the name of God" in their childhood, or negative experiences with cults or abusive and manipulative "theist friends". Calling themselves atheists can be a way for them to distance themselves from the painful experiences with people who claimed to be theists.
5. There are people who simply haven't thought about God and related issues all that much, and who jump to the conclusion that they are atheists and call themselves such.
And there may be more reasons why people call themselves atheists.
When discussing atheism, I think it is important to take into account the person's motivation for considering themselves atheist.
greenberg:
Thats athiesm
Yeah, I know a guy like that. Balasaheb Thackeray, the leader of the Hindu fundie group called Shiv Sena, who led an anti-Muslim crusade in the 90s, along with those who demolished the Babri Masjid as an act of "nationalism". He's known for calling Muslims in India as foreigners (though Islam has been in India for 1400 years, ie since its inception) and demanding a reversion to Hinduism for the "natives". A complete separatist who, once he won on his separatist right wing platform, immediately discarded everyone and simply amassed a great deal of wealth for himself. Once the people realised his aim was merely to help himself, they lost interest in his separatism. After his wife's death, he came out as an atheist. Not surprisingly he is also an ethnocentrist, which seems to be a part of the parcel in such cases. The worst of it is, he has amassed sufficient wealth to continue his ideology through his descendents
I'm not a believer in weak this or that; you either do not believe there is a God or you don't know. You can't both not believe there is a God and simultaneously not know.
Same as before; either they do not believe in God or they do or they don't know.
Since they do not appear to be thinking much, it should make no difference what they call themselves
The way I see it is, if you are asked by someone, what is your religion? And you say, "I am an atheist", and the person does not know, for some reason, what you mean, looks up the dictionary and finds the meaning
"atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God "
that is what you are, just as if someone says "I am a theist" and the person looks up the dictionary and finds,
"theism:the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods "
that is what you are.
iceaura:
Not agnostic, ignostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Though you sound like the standard atheist.
James R
Okay, what would such an atheist consider as evidence? Although evidence implies knowledge about the position and ideally falls under agnosticism.
Pete
They are rejecting the claims of theism; which is that there is a God.
So their doctrine is that there is no God is based on the claims of theism, rather than on theism.
Thats athiesm
Yeah, I know a guy like that. Balasaheb Thackeray, the leader of the Hindu fundie group called Shiv Sena, who led an anti-Muslim crusade in the 90s, along with those who demolished the Babri Masjid as an act of "nationalism". He's known for calling Muslims in India as foreigners (though Islam has been in India for 1400 years, ie since its inception) and demanding a reversion to Hinduism for the "natives". A complete separatist who, once he won on his separatist right wing platform, immediately discarded everyone and simply amassed a great deal of wealth for himself. Once the people realised his aim was merely to help himself, they lost interest in his separatism. After his wife's death, he came out as an atheist. Not surprisingly he is also an ethnocentrist, which seems to be a part of the parcel in such cases. The worst of it is, he has amassed sufficient wealth to continue his ideology through his descendents
I'm not a believer in weak this or that; you either do not believe there is a God or you don't know. You can't both not believe there is a God and simultaneously not know.
Same as before; either they do not believe in God or they do or they don't know.
Since they do not appear to be thinking much, it should make no difference what they call themselves
The way I see it is, if you are asked by someone, what is your religion? And you say, "I am an atheist", and the person does not know, for some reason, what you mean, looks up the dictionary and finds the meaning
"atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God "
that is what you are, just as if someone says "I am a theist" and the person looks up the dictionary and finds,
"theism:the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods "
that is what you are.
iceaura:
Not agnostic, ignostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Though you sound like the standard atheist.
James R
Okay, what would such an atheist consider as evidence? Although evidence implies knowledge about the position and ideally falls under agnosticism.
Pete
They are rejecting the claims of theism; which is that there is a God.
So their doctrine is that there is no God is based on the claims of theism, rather than on theism.
Last edited:
I don't think it is so simple - because I think a person normally does not have a unified mind, but instead has intentions and arguments for and against scattered all over, from wanting to serve God to outright rejecting God.
For example, within a day, I sway from extreme atheism to theism, and every variation inbetween. So what does that make me?
It makes a difference when one has to fill out some forms for the census, or otherwise state one's religious status.
I said before that when discussing atheism, I think it is important to take into account the person's motivation for considering themselves atheist; but the theist should also be clear why it is that they discuss theism with someone who considers themselves atheist. Does the theist wish to convert, help, teach, assert oneself over the atheists, is the theist merely trying to clarify their own position ...?
With some of these motivations, it doesn't seem to be important for the theist to consider how come the atheists calls themselves an atheist.
But if the theist is trying to help or teach, then I think the level of understanding and background of the atheist need to be taken into consideration. On the other hand, a theist who is aiming to convert will also take into account the atheist's background, but not necessarily in a non-manipulative manner.
Sometimes then, I am an atheist, and other times a theist.
Like many other people in the world, it makes you undecided; in fact, I would go so far as to say most people are like that.
One could write indecided.
Quite. I find the approach to religion is very different in the west, for instance. People are embarassed to discuss it, for various reasons, or feel compelled to offer arguments and become emotional and defensive about really inconsequential and nonsensical stuff. Sometimes I wickedly provoke them to see how stubbornly they are willing to cling to clearly meaningless details. Not surprisingly, the hardheadedness becomes more evident as the "discussion" proceeds.
Its quite fascinating really, to see the mind at work.
Now in an eastern context, if one were to have a similar discussion, it would follow a very different line of reasoning. The immediate reaction, for instance, would not be against the argument, but for it, it would be dissected in minutae and examined with relish, as a possibility to be considered. Its the difference in mindset perhaps. Westerners tend to see the world from their own vision and are self involved, while easterners have a more holistic vision and see things as they affect others.
And I've discovered that its a very malleable situation, I tend to mirror the argumentation as I see it, even if I am detached; a couple of times, I've been chided for being unmoving and I myself am surprised to realise that I have been unnecessarily stuck on inconsequentialities. But as soon as I am reproved (as DH did the other day) I immediately recognise it, so its a plus.
And so what?
Last edited:
I do not want to think of my self, my "who I really am" as "undecided", so I refuse to accept to be called "undecided"! :bugeye:
There is some interesting research on the differences between "East" and "West". I appreciate what Richard Nisbett has to say on these things, and especially his book "The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why". (I warmly recommend the book.
)As a pertinent example, Westerners tend to see things separately one from another, as self-contained, unchanging and independent entities; Easterners, however, tend to see things as they are connected to eachother, the relationships between them. This is probably one important reason why Westerners per default tend to consider themselves disconnected from God and the Universe.