God's purpose

[Emily's Cat]

[admission]
I tend to say I'm agnostic if I'm in the company of people that I know are very serious about their religion. They're more accepting of it if they think there's some possibility that I *might* come around to their way of thinking. With those people, I've found that if I say I'm an atheist, they feel obliged to preach at me and try to argue with me. So I totally lie and let them think I'm just not sure...
[/admission]

Really though, I'm an out and out full on atheist, no matter what kind of label you put at the front end. I do not believe that anything humans have ever called god exist. I also see no good reason to continue having those figments of imagination govern our social interactions, and I think the archaic trappings of their ritualized sycophancy are a hindrance to human development and ethics.

I just try not to have arguments about it.

So I guess maybe I'm more of an "apatheist" in that at the end of the day I just don't care about other people's imaginary friends enough to get involved in anything more than a passing interwebs discussion.

 

[ynot]

Given that evidence, could you have decided differently? I think that is the key question behind the argument that being an atheist is a not really a matter of choice. If you can't choose to believe something which contradicts what the evidence tells you, then is it really a choice? Many theists seem to think that an atheist could simply decide one day to believe in God, but I know I couldn't.

I'm surprised that one so intelligent as yourself would say that. Surely you're aware there's plenty of evidence that atheists (even "hard"ones) do sometimes become theists? It's easy. All you have to do is let your emotions override your intellect.

 

[Pup]

“Agnostic” is often used as a “safe/nice” position by both theists and atheists. Navigator also uses it as a “superior” position.

True, but it's an odd non sequitur replying to my statement where I used it rigorously correctly: I was an agnostic atheist because I didn't believe in any gods and I also believed the knowledge of gods' existence was unknowable. I don't think the word has been so poisoned by misuse or false connotations that we have to stop using it altogether.

You're on the emotional defensive again (comment, not criticism). Why on Earth would anyone tell you that story isn't true? Why would you even think they might?

No idea. I wonder the same thing.

You said in an earlier post (bold added): "Theists decide to believe god(s) exist. Atheism isn't the product of evidence and decision."

That tells me I'm wrong, that my story about becoming a hard atheist after weighing the evidence and deciding, couldn't be true, because that's not how atheism is produced.

Why would someone say that?

And earlier you wrote, bold added: "Being a theist or atheist is nothing like deciding innocence or guilt according to evidence. Theism is entirely beliefs due to complete lack of evidence. Where is the evidence for you to assess and weigh both sides to decide whether god(s) exist or not? Sorry but that's a very poor and invalid analogy."

And yet, that's honestly what it felt like in my experience. But apparently my experience doesn't matter because other atheists will tell me what analogies are valid to describe how I felt.

Pixel42 nicely asked, "Given that evidence, could you have decided differently? I think that is the key question behind the argument that being an atheist is a not really a matter of choice."

Yes, I could have decided differently. That's the nature of making a decision. Odd that I'd need to explain: yes, I made a real decision. No hard feelings though.

This is what typically happens when I say I decided to be a (hard) atheist. I have no idea why, as it seems to me a perfectly reasonable and logical way to reach a conclusion, and I was taken by complete surprise the first time it happened, but it's now why I get ready to go on the defensive.

 

[ynot]

[admission]
I tend to say I'm agnostic if I'm in the company of people that I know are very serious about their religion. They're more accepting of it if they think there's some possibility that I *might* come around to their way of thinking. With those people, I've found that if I say I'm an atheist, they feel obliged to preach at me and try to argue with me. So I totally lie and let them think I'm just not sure...
[/admission]

Perhaps you might consider climbing a rung up the honesty ladder and say you're an agnostic-atheist? When they ask what an agnostic-atheist is you can tell them you neither believe nor disbelieve in a god. Not totally a lie and closer to the truth. Being truthful is more important to me than being disingenuously nice for the sake of convenience, so I tend to say it like it is.

 

[ynot]

True, but it's an odd non sequitur replying to my statement where I used it rigorously correctly: I was an agnostic atheist because I didn't believe in any gods and I also believed the knowledge of gods' existence was unknowable. I don't think the word has been so poisoned by misuse or false connotations that we have to stop using it altogether.



No idea. I wonder the same thing.

You said in an earlier post (bold added): "Theists decide to believe god(s) exist. Atheism isn't the product of evidence and decision."

That tells me I'm wrong, that my story about becoming a hard atheist after weighing the evidence and deciding, couldn't be true, because that's not how atheism is produced.

Why would someone say that?

And earlier you wrote, bold added: "Being a theist or atheist is nothing like deciding innocence or guilt according to evidence. Theism is entirely beliefs due to complete lack of evidence. Where is the evidence for you to assess and weigh both sides to decide whether god(s) exist or not? Sorry but that's a very poor and invalid analogy."

And yet, that's honestly what it felt like in my experience. But apparently my experience doesn't matter because other atheists will tell me what analogies are valid to describe how I felt.

Pixel42 nicely asked, "Given that evidence, could you have decided differently? I think that is the key question behind the argument that being an atheist is a not really a matter of choice."

Yes, I could have decided differently. That's the nature of making a decision. Odd that I'd need to explain: yes, I made a real decision. No hard feelings though.

This is what typically happens when I say I decided to be a (hard) atheist. I have no idea why, as it seems to me a perfectly reasonable and logical way to reach a conclusion, and I was taken by complete surprise the first time it happened, but it's now why I get ready to go on the defensive.

My bad (I try). I should have more correctly said “Atheism doesn't have to be the product of evidence and decision”. Or "The definition of atheism is not the product of evidence and decision". Or “Atheism as a category is not the product of evidence and decision”. A subcategory of atheism (gnostic-atheism) however, is/can be the product of evidence and decision.

I'm talking about the definition of atheism as a category, and you're talking about reasons why people are subcategories of atheism. It seems that's the cause of the miscommunication.

 

[abaddon]

I suspected it was, but it's been so long since I've done any bayesian analysis that I'm pretty shaky on it/ Plus I couldn't tell you any more what any of the terms are.

Meh, it has been 30 odd years since I looked at it with any vigour. It simply is not relevant to my daily toil.

 

[Thor 2]

My bad (I try). I should have more correctly said “Atheism doesn't have to be the product of evidence and decision”. Or "The definition of atheism is not the product of evidence and decision". Or “Atheism as a category is not the product of evidence and decision”. A subcategory of atheism (gnostic-atheism) however, is/can be the product of evidence and decision.

I'm talking about the definition of atheism as a category, and you're talking about reasons why people are subcategories of atheism. It seems that's the cause of the miscommunication.

I find it difficult to visualize subcategories in atheism. There would be a variation in the degree of belief, that something supernatural may be going on, but this would be a gradual scale with no sharp lines.

I seem to remember Navigator trying to define Richard Dawkins as a hard atheist, who declared that god did not exist, but was set straight on that score by myself and others. I have yet to meet an atheist who takes that position also.

 

[Pup]

I should have more correctly said “Atheism doesn't have to be the product of evidence and decision”.

That (and all the rest) are slogans I could get behind. Thanks.

 

[ynot]

I find it difficult to visualize subcategories in atheism. There would be a variation in the degree of belief, that something supernatural may be going on, but this would be a gradual scale with no sharp lines.

I seem to remember Navigator trying to define Richard Dawkins as a hard atheist, who declared that god did not exist, but was set straight on that score by myself and others. I have yet to meet an atheist who takes that position also.

Surely a baby isn't an atheist in the same way an adult is?

I (and Pup) are two atheists you have "met" that are happy to declare gods don't actually exist. We don't do it with evidence for the negative, we do it with complete and utter lack of evidence for the affirmative. Also with complete lack of scientific possibility and reason for there to even possibly be god(s). As much as any god knowledge can be currently known, I'm happy to declare I know there is no actual god(s). This is no less credible than declaring there is no actual Santa or Tooth Fairy etc.

But the only really important thing to agree on is that atheism is "Not theism".

 

[Pup]

I find it difficult to visualize subcategories in atheism. There would be a variation in the degree of belief, that something supernatural may be going on, but this would be a gradual scale with no sharp lines.

I seem to remember Navigator trying to define Richard Dawkins as a hard atheist, who declared that god did not exist, but was set straight on that score by myself and others. I have yet to meet an atheist who takes that position also.

What Ynot said.

I think the hard line comes when one states, "The Lingbling Islanders believe in a god. Do you think it exists?

The hard atheist would say "Never heard of it, but that doesn't matter. No."

The soft atheist would say "No, never heard of it. But tell me about it and maybe I will."

In other words, the hard atheist has a categorical answer of no for all gods, whether she's heard the details or not. The soft atheist doesn't believe in any god he's heard of so far, but now that he's heard of this new one, he needs more information before he can say he won't believe.

Anyone or everyone, feel free to criticize that. I may have misrepresented positions badly.

I'll just toss in a bit of defense for the hard atheist, who seems hopelessly close-minded. In my case, it comes from seeing how similar all the gods are, how they all meet human needs and rely on human cognitive biases. I can predict that the Lingbling Islanders probably don't have unique insight into the universe and because they're human, their god is like all the rest.

I asked a question here that bugged me a while ago. If I say I believe there are no gods, would I have to cling to that faith-like, even if some (unspecified) new ironclad evidence for a god appeared? The general consensus was that "believe" meant the sciency sort of evidence-based belief, not cling to the faith regardless how silly it seems.

 

[Magrat]

If I might inquire, how are you considering the two main kinds of atheism, lacking a belief in any god (soft), and positively asserting that there are no gods at all (hard)? I hate the labels soft and hard, but don't really like any of the other labels better, and just need to use some shorthand.

I don't consider it. I have no idea, and I don't consider the distinctions important, myself. I'm rather squishy so I suppose we can use that.

 

[ynot]

Perhaps there only needs to be two kinds of atheism . . .

Uninformed Atheist – Covers babies and those that have never heard of theism.

Informed Atheist – Covers those that know of theism but either haven't decided to become a theist or have decided not to. Or merely goes “Whatever . . . Next” .


ETA - Perhaps I'm a Post-Atheist.

Post-Theism/Post Atheism proposes that the division of theism vs. atheism is obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past.

 

[Magrat]

Perhaps there only needs to be two kinds of atheism . . .

Uninformed Atheist – Covers babies and those that have never heard of theism.

Informed Atheist – Covers those that know of theism but either haven't decided to become a theist or have decided not to. Or merely goes “Whatever . . . Next” .


ETA - Perhaps I'm a Post-Atheist.

Post-Theism/Post Atheism proposes that the division of theism vs. atheism is obsolete, that God belongs to a stage of human development now past.

In that case I'd say, post-atheist. I don't believe theism to be true nor do I believe humanity needs this construct. I ha e seen first hand how insidiously damaging it can be.

 

[ynot]

Somebody - “Are you a theist or an atheist?”

Me - “Neither, theism and atheism are obsolete because the concept of gods is obsolete”.

Somebody - “But millions of people still believe in gods”

Me - “It's not my fault millions of people cling to obsolete beliefs”

 

[Magrat]

Somebody - “Are you a theist or an atheist?”

Me - “Neither, theism and atheism are obsolete because the concept of gods is obsolete”.

Somebody - “But millions of people still believe in gods”

Me - “It's not my fault millions of people cling to obsolete beliefs”

Me: and neither am I required to defend my lack of belief in archaic and conflicting supernatural myths just because you, the questioner, have chosen to suspend your rational ability for a modicum of comfort in the form of ancient threats.

 

[ynot]

Me: and neither am I required to defend my lack of belief in archaic and conflicting supernatural myths just because you, the questioner, have chosen to suspend your rational ability for a modicum of comfort in the form of ancient threats.

Bit wordy and still takes the atheist position.

Maybe this is a better last line . . .

Me – “That some people choose to believe in obsolete gods is their choice, that I choose not to entertain their obsolete beliefs is my choice”.

 

[Magrat]

Bit wordy and still takes the atheist position.

Maybe this is a better last line . . .

Me – “That some people choose to believe in obsolete gods is their choice, that I choose not to entertain their obsolete beliefs is my choice”.

Or maybe: talk to the hand! [emoji113]

 

[Thor 2]

Surely a baby isn't an atheist in the same way an adult is?
I (and Pup) are two atheists you have "met" that are happy to declare gods don't actually exist. We don't do it with evidence for the negative, we do it with complete and utter lack of evidence for the affirmative. Also with complete lack of scientific possibility and reason for there to even possibly be god(s). As much as any god knowledge can be currently known, I'm happy to declare I know there is no actual god(s). This is no less credible than declaring there is no actual Santa or Tooth Fairy etc.

But the only really important thing to agree on is that atheism is "Not theism".

Well ynot and Pup too. I don't think it is quite as clear cut as that.

I am an atheist about the Abrahamic god in the adult way because I had some degree of indoctrination about him as a child and then rejected him as an adult.

I am an atheist about the Lingbling Islanders god, (thank you Pup), in the baby way because I never heard of him, (I assume it's a him as they all seem to be - gotta keep those women in line ya know), but wouldn't be too bothered to investigate it further. You could say theists are atheists, in the baby way, as far as all the other gods, apart from the one they grovel to.

I still maintain a small degree of reservation about saying, with absolute certainty, there is no supernatural entity. I will say, with absolute certainty, such an entity is not the Abrahamic god however.

I am open to evidence from any source, although I am somewhat tired of the empty, (evidence wise), bleating of Christians and Muslims. Jews don't bother me much as the majority of Jews, (in the sense of race), seem to be non believers, and the other religious ones just smugly sit back, secure in the knowledge that they are the chosen people.

 

[Jodie]

I favor the Gnostic world view. In the Gnostic view, God is the ultimate consciousness which is beyond all created universes and never really created anything as we understand that process. God emanated, or brought forth from within, the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. According to this view, everything is God because reality is the substance of God. In order to explain imperfection, or a flawed world, just like a document that's been copied one too many times and ends up blurry, pieces of this "essence" have been projected so far from the original source that they've now become corrupted. That's why it's wrong to worship the cosmos, or nature, or any kind of embodied person or creature.

 

[Pup]

I am an atheist about the Lingbling Islanders god, (thank you Pup), in the baby way because I never heard of him, (I assume it's a him as they all seem to be - gotta keep those women in line ya know), but wouldn't be too bothered to investigate it further.

That brings up an error in what I wrote. Thanks! I'm not sure what the correction would be, though.

For those who identify as the most common kind of atheist (weak, negative, whatever label you like best), I understand that you lack belief in all the gods you know of. What happens when you're told of a new-to-you god that you know nothing about except the name, like the Lingbling Islanders' god?

First, you wouldn't immediately believe in it, because you know nothing about it. Obviously. But then what? You could say, I lack belief in all the gods I know of so....

1) I need to learn more about this god, then I'll either become a theist who worships it, or remain an atheist who lacks belief in every god I know of.

Or

2) I don't care enough about this god to learn more, but I can still say I lack belief in all the gods I know of, because I definitely don't believe in it.

Or... fill in the blank. What most accurately reflects your position?

What's intriguing is that #2 is so close to the strong atheist view, able to reject belief in a god in advance, without knowing anything about the god. It seems rational to me, because let's get real, what are the odds that this one obscure god worshipped by 200 fisherman and their wives on an obscure island is the real deal, while the Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus are all wrong. Life is too short to study every tiny religion that ever existed.

But if after the first few investigations, one has the confidence to reject gods instantly, what's the difference in strong atheism? Thor2, I know you asked the same thing, and I thought I knew, but now I'm not sure.

Is it this:

I still maintain a small degree of reservation about saying, with absolute certainty, there is no supernatural entity. I will say, with absolute certainty, such an entity is not the Abrahamic god however.

How would you find or identify as real that supernatural entity, or does finding it or identifying it not even matter? The Pascal's Wagerers would place great emphasis on finding and worshiping one's best guess at the real god, in case one is right. And if I weren't a strong atheist, I'd probably be checking every little obscure religion to see which impressed me as most apt to be real. But I don't, because I became a strong atheist in part because the gods all seemed repetitive.