What is an atheist?

[Damian]

Oh, of course there is difference between those propositions:

Again,
The default position about any claim about reality is to not believe it is the case until sufficient evidence is presented to change your current understanding of reality.
IE: X does not believe claim Y made by person Z.
Your point on 3 is a knowledge claim, not a belief claim. No one knows if a Y is the case or if not-Y is the case. But the belief claim is a default position of believing not-Y is the case until evidence is presented for every claim about reality.
There is no middle ground with belief claims. You either believe you don’t. You can believe things to varying degrees of certainty, but you can not have a middle ground between belief and disbelief.

We’ll keep doing this until your feedback adjusts to what was presented. You are not giving any feedback on what you think I said and are just giving feedback on how you interpreted what I said and ran from there. You never ask to see if what I said matches how you interpreted it and that’s the problem with talking to people like you. Not once have you asked, “This is what you said, is this what you mean…” You don’t care about understanding, you care about keeping your position than learning and adjusting.

Maybe you should read the whole sentence: “Oh, you mean I should have said ‘There is actually zero actual evidence of atheists in general (and you specifically) being so perfectly honest and open-minded.’?”.

So your point here was about atheists not being honest and open-minded? I’ll leave that up to the fair-minded readers to determine that since you don’t seem to take in anything from this side that was presented at all that doesn’t comport to your ignorant position. We are open to what ever reality indicates to be the case. You are coming across as wanting to accuse people of close-mindedness when they don’t ascribe to your level of possible belief about the supernatural. Well tough. We do have higher levels of “evidence and argument” than it takes for you to accept the supernatural as a possibility. We are telling the religious community all the time why their claims of evidence and arguments don’t work on us and what would, but the religious community continually fails to present that level of evidence for the last 2000 years for christianity it seems.

That’s a lot of words for “I am not really all that open-minded.”…

Yes I’m not as open-minded as you would like because I’m not trying to paint the bulls-eye around the arrow that I want. Reality doesn’t owe me the answer my culture would like, reality owes my culture the truth of what reality actually is.

 

[Damian]

Atheists are people who are not convinced that the claim the religious community is making about the supernatural is true in reference to reality.

Antitheists are people who are against organized religion. They find that religions are not benefitial to society.

You can be religious and be an atheist.
Religion is just the social creation.
You can not be a deist and an atheist.
Claims that supernatural is part of reality is just a claim about the truth of reality. Like believing that trees exist or not.
If you organize people around worshiping the idea of a tree or the actual tree, that is religion. So you can be a deist and an atheist and still worship the tree and create an entire social concept around how to worship trees.

 

[Damian]

I admit that is has surprised me how many atheists do say they feel a need for transcendent meaning

Everyone has a need for trascendent meaning. I believe what they are talking about is the idea that their reference point for living the good life is a good reference point to strive towards so that they know that they found a truth to follow that transcends tribalism in all its forms: of racism, nationalism, sexism, etc. We also couple this process with finding ways to be remembered when we participate in this process. That’s why we paint on cave walls, write sonnets, etc.

I didn’t realize how unusual my feelings on the matter were or that that was why so many people seek religion.

We all need ceremony for release of heightened emotional states. That’s why we punch the ground out of frustration, kiss photos, rend our clothes in tragic events, have ceremonies for coming of age, etc. This evolved into what religion is today with a link to the supernatural because we want to channel powers to fix tragedies that are out of our control. When we can’t rally our group to help us, then we want access to power that the group denies us. This is why supernatural belief is reduced in social democracies like Denmark and Japan. The group of the country has their priorities set around taking care of its people instead of the capitalist democracies like the US where we have to provide for ourselves as individuals.

 

[Vonsalza]

Damian:

Again,
The default position about any claim about reality is to not believe it is the case until sufficient evidence is presented to change your current understanding of reality.

Not quite.
The hypothetical and philosophical default is “uncertainty”. Not “no”.

Your point on 3 is a knowledge claim, not a belief claim.

And as the Gettier Problem shows, the idea that knowing and believing are discreet things is largely an ideological one. We used to “know” that gravity was generated by mass. Now we “know” its generated by the spacetime the mass displaces.

There is no middle ground with belief claims. You either believe you don’t

Oh horse manure. A degree of uncertainty is the norm among intelligent people on most things. Even Hawking was happy to discuss his uncertainties about the existence of black holes.

You’re just spouting your own ideology at this point.

 

[MPat]

Again,
The default position about any claim

Naturally, that has nothing to do with what you were supposedly responding to.

We’ll keep doing this until your feedback adjusts to what was presented. You are not giving any feedback on what you think I said and are just giving feedback on how you interpreted what I said and ran from there. You never ask to see if what I said matches how you interpreted it and that’s the problem with talking to people like you. Not once have you asked, “This is what you said, is this what you mean…” You don’t care about understanding, you care about keeping your position than learning and adjusting.

So, you intend to respond to something other than what is being said, since you are not getting the answers you want?

Not to mention that if I have misinterpreted anything you said, you are free to correct me. Just as I am correcting you when you misinterpret me. Which, by the way, seems to be rather common… Maybe you should be willing to be a bit more forgiving about misinterpretations, for your own sake?

So your point here was about atheists not being honest and open-minded?

No. My point is that you have claimed what is an exceptional perfection of honesty and open-mindedness for atheists and yourself. And that you gave suspiciously little evidence in support of your claim. (In fact, as i have argued, your saying so is actually evidence against your claim, not evidence for it.)

And my next point is that if we’d apply the “reasoning” you apply to theism to this your claim, they would show themselves to be incompatible.

Now, of course, you do not like this conclusion. So, are you going to refute it, to accept it, to tell us that you have to think about it, or to misinterpret it?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Do you expect arrogance to be made any better by adding dishonesty and cowardice to it?

Outside of philosophical discussions online the vast majority of religious people I’ve met treat “believe” as a knowledge statement wrt matters of faith. “I know there is no God” is false (for me) and not conducive to polite discourse.

Edit: for instance, “believe” in the Nicene creed seems really close to a knowledge claim. Fell free to correct me but from the masses I’ve attended it seems like The Church “knows” and uses it as a reason for her faithful to believe it. Or I’m overthinking it.

Someone who really believes that God does not exist should not try to pretend to believe something else instead just because he has no good reasons for his belief.

The problem is all of the other assumptions commonly attributed to “I believe there’s no God” doesn’t really fit. So one can either fight to disconnect the false assumptions tied to it or attempt to rephrase to state something close but without the false baggage.

Try as we might humans (including me) are rather illogical creatures. My dog often seems more logical, then again our interactions are a tad simpler.

 

[MPat]

Outside of philosophical discussions online the vast majority of religious people I’ve met treat “believe” as a knowledge statement wrt matters of faith. “I know there is no God” is false (for me) and not conducive to polite discourse.

Perhaps you should start by defining “knowledge” (perhaps also “belief”).

One “standard” definition of knowledge is “justified true belief”. As you can see, it has nothing to do with certainty. So, do you have a different definition?

Under that definition claim “I believe that X.” is close to claim “I know that X.”. It would be very unusual, to say the least, for someone to claim to believe something, while claiming this belief to be false. And people rarely claim to believe something just because they can, without any justification.

The problem is all of the other assumptions commonly attributed to “I believe there’s no God” doesn’t really fit.

Really? Like what?

So one can either fight to disconnect the false assumptions tied to it or attempt to rephrase to state something close but without the false baggage.

Like in some movie: “‘Theft’ is such an ugly word. I prefer ‘borrowing’.” or something?("Blackmail" Is Such an Ugly Word - TV Tropes has more examples.)

So, “‘I believe God does not exist.’ is such an ugly phrase. I prefer ‘I lack a belief that God exists.’.”?

As you might note, that fools no one. The hapless atheist who tries this trope only adds dishonesty and cowardice to any “baggage” that existed before him, perhaps also creating an impression that he also thinks that atheism is evil.

Try as we might humans (including me) are rather illogical creatures. My dog often seems more logical, then again our interactions are a tad simpler.

Well, human nature is fallen.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

One “standard” definition of knowledge is “justified true belief”. As you can see, it has nothing to do with certainty. So, do you have a different definition?

true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion
Source

“Knowledge” implies truth which implies certainty.

Really? Like what?

A common one is antitheism. Also, variations of “If no God, then why not pillage and plunder?” Or “then (love, life, marriage, etc) is worthless to you”.

As you might note, that fools no one. The hapless atheist who tries this trope only adds dishonesty and cowardice to any “baggage” that existed before him, perhaps also creating an impression that he also thinks that atheism is evil.

I prefer rebranding. To separate from the more aggressive “New Atheists”.

So, if certainty isn’t required to make a knowledge claim, then how is it different from belief?

 

[MPat]

true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion

Um, it looks like those are two separate definitions. It would be nice to end up with one.

“Knowledge” implies truth which implies certainty.

Yes, knowledge should imply truth. But no, truth does not imply certainty. Why should it?

A belief can be true without much certainty.

Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) shows how many issues with knowledge exist.

A common one is antitheism. Also, variations of “If no God, then why not pillage and plunder?” Or “then (love, life, marriage, etc) is worthless to you”.

Perhaps you should consider what is actually meant here. For example:

Also, variations of “If no God, then why not pillage and plunder?”

Here your opponent does not claim that you have pillaging as a hobby. On the contrary, it is assumed that you do not (the argument would lose much of its force otherwise). The point is that theists have better explanations why atheists are not purely evil than atheists themselves.

And, well, that much is true.

Or “then (love, life, marriage, etc) is worthless to you”.

Again, what is meant is that theists have better explanations for the fact that you value love, life etc. than you do.

And again, that is true.

I prefer rebranding. To separate from the more aggressive “New Atheists”.

Just be a bit more polite, more respectful, than they are, and we’ll notice. It is not very hard, given the level of “politeness” and “respect” that “New Atheists” are famous for.

So, if certainty isn’t required to make a knowledge claim, then how is it different from belief?

Specifically the claim? Not very different. Claim “I believe that X.” emphasises the belief itself, claim “I know that X.” emphasises the truth of X.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, what is meant is that theists have better explanations for the fact that you value love, life etc. than you do.

No. What YOU mean is that theists BELIEVE that they have better explanations. As a matter of faith. I believe that my explanations are better. And I can offer evidence. Not that you’d accept it. But let’s keep the phrasing accurate.

And we will try to keep the kid gloves on if robust debate is frowned upon. As I always say, if we keep the level of debate as it would be between two guys in a bar without security being called, then we won’t go far wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

Proof that God is Love. Who else would allow His creatures to judge Him even to the point of non-existence?

 

[Vonsalza]

Respectfully, that doesn’t really prove anything since the God that does not exist would “allow” the same thing.

 

[MPat]

No. What YOU mean is that theists BELIEVE that they have better explanations.

But let’s keep the phrasing accurate.

Actually, if we’d keep the phrasing accurate, the ones who use the arguments in question certainly do mean to say that they have better explanations.

As a matter of faith. I believe that my explanations are better.

Most definitely. Things like that would be in New Atheist Creed, if there was one.

It’s just that there isn’t much of a reason for anyone else to take such your beliefs very seriously.

And I can offer evidence.

Now, it is true that we believe miracles are possible, but “New Atheist” actually offering evidence for something (as opposed to singing praises to evidence, demanding evidence, or dismissing evidence offered by someone else) is a bit uncommon…

One can almost define one kind of atheist as someone who does not offer evidence.

Just about anyone else is going to present some evidence - perhaps weak, fake, misleading evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

More seriously, we can see that atheists do not have good explanations why they are not purely evil, because when they try to offer some, they offer explanations that really explain something else.

For example, atheists can offer some explanation how they can guess what actions are good or bad (for example, utilitarianism). Yet those explanations do not explain why those atheists should care if their actions are good or bad.

And we will try to keep the kid gloves on if robust debate is frowned upon. As I always say, if we keep the level of debate as it would be between two guys in a bar without security being called, then we won’t go far wrong.

It sure would be interesting to you try.

 

[o_mlly]

Respectfully, that doesn’t really prove anything since the God that does not exist would “allow” the same thing.

?. Respectfully, things that do not exist do nothing.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

What’s an atheist? The opposite to a theist