Is Atheism A Conclusion Or A Belief?

[Antlerman]

I'm starting this topic as a place to move various discussions about how atheism is superior to any theist or any other spiritual pursuits that seem to inevitability get injected as dismissals into others open discussions about alternative beliefs, without actually being said in any sort of contributing fashion, and the ensuing challenges that inevitability wind up derailing and soiling legitimate discussions. Discussion of atheist views within other topics of course are welcomed, but the critieria is a dialog that respects others views while dialoging your own, rather than making statements that amount to 'you're views are stupid. I have evidence you do not". There is a recognizable difference, and has everything to do with participation, and nothing whatsoever to do with differences of beliefs.

 

Any atheist is free to participate in other people's discussions, but when it starts to derail and shut down other topics, making people not want to participate because of their ungoverned insertion of their views as dismissals and not discussions, and ensuing challenges back at their particular points of view begin to interfere, then they will get pulled out of that topic into this topic for focused response that does not ruin the threads of this forum. Webmaster Dave specifically set up this forum to encourage the free discourse of alternative views, and the complaints of this sort of disruption needs to be more aggressively moderated, unfortunately.

 

So I'm going to start by cleaning up another recent topic that is getting over run by the "you have no evidence!" crowd to allow their topic to be fully explored here without ruining threads for others who need to the freedom to have two-way discussions.

 

Is Atheism a conclusion, or a belief. Below are the discussions moved out the other thread into this one where we may continue the discussion of the belief (or conclusion) of Atheism as an alternative view to theism or non-theism spirituality.

 

Florduh, here's your chance to prove you views. This is my challenge to you.

[Legion]

I am a man of modest means. I was talking to a new friend of mine the other day who is also of modest means and a portion of our conversation went like this....

 

I said, "Everybody is better than somebody."

He asked, "Who are we better than?"

I answered, "Homeless people."

He asked, "Who are homeless people better than?"

I answered, "Criminals."

He asked, "Who are criminals better than?"

I said, "Everyone."

[florduh]

discussions about how atheism is superior to any theist or any other spiritual pursuits

I have simply concluded there is insufficient evidence for me to embrace a belief in an extraordinary claim regarding the supernatural/spiritual/mystical. Your mileage may vary.

 

Florduh, here's your chance to prove you views. This is my challenge to you.

I don't have views that need proof. I just have found no reason to believe in gods or other invisible, undetectable constructs. I can't prove that I have found no persuasive argument for a theistic belief, you just have to take my word for that. You like to depict not believing in something as a belief system itself. You may view it that way but I don't. There are many things that others have claimed to be true but I don't believe in them either. L. Ron Hubbard tells us of the space alien Xenu visiting Earth, and though millions may believe him I have seen no evidence to persuade me. Do I have a "belief" that Xenu is bullshit or am I simply coming to the conclusion that the story doesn't make sense?

[florduh]

discussions about how atheism is superior to any theist or any other spiritual pursuits

I have simply concluded there is insufficient evidence for me to embrace a belief in an extraordinary claim regarding the supernatural/spiritual/mystical. Your mileage may vary.

 

Florduh, here's your chance to prove you views. This is my challenge to you.

I don't have views that need proof. I just have found no reason to believe in gods or other invisible, undetectable constructs. I can't prove that I have found no persuasive argument for a theistic belief, you just have to take my word for that. You like to depict not believing in something as a belief system itself. You may view it that way but I don't. There are many things that others have claimed to be true but I don't believe in them either. L. Ron Hubbard tells us of the space alien Xenu visiting Earth, and though millions may believe him I have seen no evidence to persuade me. Do I have a "belief" that Xenu is bullshit or am I simply coming to the conclusion that the story doesn't make sense?

[florduh]

discussions about how atheism is superior to any theist or any other spiritual pursuits

I have simply concluded there is insufficient evidence for me to embrace a belief in an extraordinary claim regarding the supernatural/spiritual/mystical. Your mileage may vary.

 

Florduh, here's your chance to prove you views. This is my challenge to you.

I don't have views that need proof. I just have found no reason to believe in gods or other invisible, undetectable constructs. I can't prove that I have found no persuasive argument for a theistic belief, you just have to take my word for that. You like to depict not believing in something as a belief system itself. You may view it that way but I don't. There are many things that others have claimed to be true but I don't believe in them either. L. Ron Hubbard tells us of the space alien Xenu visiting Earth, and though millions may believe him I have seen no evidence to persuade me. Do I have a "belief" that Xenu is bullshit or am I simply coming to the conclusion that the story doesn't make sense?

[Antlerman]

There appears to be some functional problem moving the posts over to this thread but when that is corrected I'll clean up the mess left over in the other topic. My apologies for that.

 

discussions about how atheism is superior to any theist or any other spiritual pursuits

I have simply concluded there is insufficient evidence for me to embrace a belief in an extraordinary claim regarding the supernatural/spiritual/mystical. Your mileage may vary.

My point was you claim that Atheism is a conclusion. That means that after weighing the evidence, the conclusion is there is no-god. The only way that is not a belief is if you have evidence supporting a positive position of No-God. It is impossible to prove a negative, so there can be no conclusion to the matter. Ever.

 

As I said, you may say you see no reason to believe in God and that is perfectly fine. But you cannot say the evidence shows there is no God. And furthermore, based on what you see, or don't see you believe one thing or the other about it. Those beliefs are choices in how to view whatever you are evaluating. No other way around that.

 

Therefore, your statement that atheism is a conclusion, is no more or less valid than a theist saying that theism is also a conclusion - which uses the language in exactly the same way with the same end. They "conclude" (rather believe) based on what they are looking at that their position is valid.

 

You do not have a superior position that has "conclusions". Yours is a belief, just a much as theism is a belief. The theist also has evidence of their own, their own criteria for believing, just as you have your evidence and your own criteria for believing whatever you do, and whatever that is. The only thing that you are concluding, is how you want to believe about something. Does that clarify?

 

My point is you should try considering that other points of view are as valid as yours to be explored in the grand scope of discussions and quit being so overly-confident you hold the corner on truth, to the point you come raining in on others parades waving yours about as the answer that all need to come to. Atheism is a valid belief and I respect it. I do not respect the inability of those who cannot respect other points of view in a discussion forum that allows for that.

 

If you are cock-sure about your beliefs being correct, and the only logical conclusion that is outside the question of personal beliefs, then I challenge you to put that to the test against me. I don't think you have a large enough perspective on anything really, to claim "Conclusions". Are you so sure enough about this being the conclusion to put that to the test?

[Deva]

I always held out the possibility that a God or Gods exist. It seems to me that atheism is both a conclusion and a belief. I am not too clear on the difference.

 

I like to hold the door open for possibilities. I suppose that is the main reason I could never be an atheist. My version of God is certainly not confined to a book like most Christians do.

[florduh]

If you are cock-sure about your beliefs being correct, and the only logical conclusion that is outside the question of personal beliefs, then I challenge you to put that to the test against me. I don't think you have a large enough perspective on anything really, to claim "Conclusions". Are you so sure enough about this being the conclusion to put that to the test?

I am "cock-sure" that I haven't found enough evidence to believe. You are framing the fact that I don't have enough evidence to believe an extraordinary claim is somehow a belief. My only conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence which goes beyond feelings, wishes, psychological needs, dreams and "revealed" wisdom. Lacking reason to believe results in a lack of belief. I don't know how to make it any clearer than what I already said - Do I have a "belief" that Xenu is bullshit or am I simply coming to the conclusion that the story doesn't make sense?

 

So, I have concluded (due to the absence of evidence for existence) that there is no Santa, no fairies, no succubus, no incubus, no Thor, no Easter Bunny, no Yahweh, no ghosts, and no honest politician. I can't prove there is no Xenu, but can anyone prove there is? That is the relevant question.

 

Despite your wording, you are indeed asking me to prove a negative, that is, that an invisible, undetectable thing doesn't exist. I admit I can't do that. The proofs that have been offered in support of the notion do not impress me as valid. The supernatural/mystical/spiritual premise always is reduced to needing a huge dose of faith and presumption to accompany anything presented as evidence. I, and everyone else, can only believe what we are capable of believing. You (I assume) can't believe in Yahweh or Xenu and I can't believe in spirits.

 

I do believe that holding such unfounded - in my opinion - beliefs can be beneficial to some people in some circumstances. That makes them valid in the sense that they are useful to the believer in promoting happiness, hope, even healing. The real part of this to me is the psychology involved and the mind-body connection.

 

So to quote Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

[Antlerman]

So, I have concluded (due to the absence of evidence for existence) that there is no Santa, no fairies, no succubus, no incubus, no Thor, no Easter Bunny, no Yahweh, no ghosts, and no honest politician. I can't prove there is no Xenu, but can anyone prove there is? That is the relevant question.

Very well then. Then why are you participating in the ExChristian Spirituality and Theism thread? What is your purpose? To make sure those who missed it know what your conclusion is, how it stands in opposition to anything they might be considering? To dissuade them? To convert them? What exactly?

 

I'd really like a clear, intelligent, and honest answer to this. I'm sure everyone really would, actually.

 

So to quote Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

This much is so far very apparent. Again, why do you post in here if you are concluded? For me personally, my views are constantly evolving. I'm not concluded about anything, but I do hold beliefs; beliefs that allow for dialog.

 

 

I won't address any further points until this is answered.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

For me it's the default position that I take when credible evidence for the supernatural is missing.

 

It's the same position (most) christians would take about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without proof of her existence, they don't think she exists.

[Antlerman]

For me it's the default position that I take when credible evidence for the supernatural is missing.

What if "God" was not an object, a thing like a Yeti or a Penguin that can be measure, examined, dissected, or scrutinized with the tools of science? What if "God" is all things? Then would saying "credible evidence" be sort of the wrong criteria? And then following suit, would saying that scientific evidence is the only valid critera, in itself be defining reality and the measure of it, in a sense presuming sufficient knowledge to 'conclude' that, sort of like a type of human-omniscience?

 

I'm just tossing these thoughts out there off the top of my head just for argument's sake.

 

It's the same position (most) christians would take about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without proof of her existence, they don't think she exists.

Yes, I always say "most" Christians (most, being defined mostly as American Evangelicals) are the flip side of that same modern criteria for what is considered "Valid".

[florduh]

Then why are you participating in the ExChristian Spirituality and Theism thread?

You started the thread with a challenge directed specifically at me to offer proof of some kind to you regarding the fact that I lack certain beliefs.

 

This was triggered by my response to someone else in a different thread. Someone had decided to stop believing in atheism and adopt some sort of pagan-like spiritual pursuit. I voiced my opinion to the effect that atheism isn't just some adopted belief but rather a conclusion one can arrive at after looking for evidence for gods and finding none. I further suggested that if they found reasons to believe a religious system was valid, they should pursue it.

 

To me, a person should have reasons for their belief in certain things and their lack of belief in other things. Rather than someone saying that their mother believed in magic spells so they do too, they should test the belief to see if it holds water. Blindly adopting beliefs that sound good or are popular doesn't seem very useful or productive to me.

 

If I ever post in this forum again it will be in error because I didn't check to see where the topic was posted.

[Guest Valk0010]

Atheism is categorically a conclusion, but also speaking categorically theism is as well. Now as to what is most accurate as far as a worldview, is another debate entirely.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

What if "God" was not an object, a thing like a Yeti or a Penguin that can be measure, examined, dissected, or scrutinized with the tools of science? What if "God" is all things?

I guess I was responding to the christian definition of god - a supernatural entity that interacts with the world. I believe it is possible to determine via scientific methods whether someone that is interacting with the world exists by repeatable methods. For example, if christians prayed for amputees and their limbs instantly reappeared on a regular basis.

 

If god is defined as "all things" then I'm not an atheist since I believe that at least some things exist (I'm typing on one of them right now!.)

[Guest I Love Dog]

"Atheism", from the Greek, means the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It has nothing to do with non-deistic spirituality. It has nothing to do with spirituality at all and there are atheists who have varying beliefs when it comes to spirituality or the supernatural, as we see on ExChristian.net . The only common thread for atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Atheism, to me, is a non-belief, not a belief. It's the lack of a belief in a god or gods. It can't be a conclusion, because obviously if strong, irrefutable evidence for the existence of a god or god became available, then the non-belief would probably change.

 

 

So is atheism a conclusion or a belief?

 

No, it is neither. That's my conclusion!

[Yrth]

AM,

 

I should say first that I've been paying attention to your posts on this topic, in particular the rationalism / irrationalism thread.

 

My understanding here is that you would prefer participants to help themselves to some humble pie before posting, specifically certain atheist viewpoints, because atheism, theism, and non-theism spirituality share equally foundationless foundations. Can't prove or disprove God.

 

What is so troubling about this is that Christians use that argument to assert that, at the least, theism (and by insinuation, Christianity) and atheism are on equal logical footing. I thought, and still think, that this argument is rebuffed when theism is shown to have the burden of proof for claims about God.

 

It puts an atheist in the uncomfortable role of the deconstructionist, burdened by proof, doomed to parse theist claims, still logically constrained from 'concluding' that God doesn't exist. Therefore, if someone then takes that extra step and 'believes' there is no God, they are accused of 'believing' like a theist would.

 

Stepping outside the logician's office for a second, lack of evidence is considered evidence in our courts. If someone is accused of burglarizing some household, the lack of fingerprints at the scene is relevant to the truth of the matter. So are the defendant's gloves, if he has any. The point is that we don't live in pure logic, but rather operate in terms of reasonableness. What is reasonable to believe and why? Very few statements are logical conclusions, obviously. So what?

 

I think the reasonable thing to believe is that the Christian God does not exist, based primarily on the lack of evidence. I see an enormous difference between the reasonableness of atheist and theist beliefs. I do not think that because my position isn't within the narrow field of what's logically demonstrable, I am therefore on equal footing with a Christian. They would ignore the lack of fingerprints, gloves, tools, hell, they would ignore the lack of a defendant. I couldn't live like that, and I'm suffering for it now, but that's just the way things are.

 

I don't support dismissive attitudes, but I understand them.

[Antlerman]

Atheism is categorically a conclusion, but also speaking categorically theism is as well. Now as to what is most accurate as far as a worldview, is another debate entirely.

This is my point. To state it as a conclusion as opposed to any other conclusion of what one choose to believes (based upon whatever evidence or criteria has value and meaning to them), misrepresents it as something categorically different, which it simply is not. That was my challenge. That you for pointing it out.

 

BTW, your response in the science thread to me is very good. I look forward to engaging in response to you. That is the sort of discussion that I really enjoy. Thank you for it.

[Antlerman]

Atheism, to me, is a non-belief, not a belief. It's the lack of a belief in a god or gods. It can't be a conclusion, because obviously if strong, irrefutable evidence for the existence of a god or god became available, then the non-belief would probably change.

 

 

So is atheism a conclusion or a belief?

 

No, it is neither. That's my conclusion!

 

I agree with this, technically speaking. Whether it becomes a faith of sorts, depends on what someone does with it, how they uphold it as The Truth, or not. Simply lacking a god in a belief, personally I'd prefer the use of the term non-theist. Context and use really ends up dictating it's strength as a belief versus a simple position.

 

It's like the word religion. What does that mean? How is it used? How is it exercised? What is its impetus? Those sorts of questions.

[Antlerman]

AM,

 

I should say first that I've been paying attention to your posts on this topic, in particular the rationalism / irrationalism thread.

I keep wondering what some of my views were when I started that two years ago and someone recently revived. I haven't re-read those earlier posts, so there may be points in there I could possibly update/revise to my thoughts today. The posts of the last few weeks of course are current.

 

My understanding here is that you would prefer participants to help themselves to some humble pie before posting, specifically certain atheist viewpoints, because atheism, theism, and non-theism spirituality share equally foundationless foundations. Can't prove or disprove God.

I appreciate your candor, but respectfully this isn't reflective of my motives. All I care about is arrogant attitudes being displayed that frankly put people off, big time - to the point they have expressly stated again, and again, and again, that they feel they can't share their points of view because of those few, pushy Atheists who have to speak negatively of any non-theist point of view. That, is my motive for trying to use reason to speak to them, perhaps citing that they really aren't so different, in the hope that maybe, just maybe, some humility could touch their heart.

 

That heart is not found at the end of some logic argument! This forum is explicitly set up to encourage ExChristians to explore their post Christian lives, to find what is meaningful for them, and those who are so damned immature they have to try to convince everyone how right they are now, to the point they violate their liberty and the very rules of this forum.... well, there's my motives. I'd rather use reason, than a heavy boot on their ends. That's not my style.

 

So now I try this. Challenge me. Put myself out in front as someone who actually now has beliefs that definitely don't fit the Dawkins/Harris sort of popular views. I'm not some gullible fool, and I have a vast swath of reasons into many areas behind what I believe. Challenge me, come after me and leave them the hell alone. I care that reason prevails into the heart of everyone, theist and atheist. Those are only just tools, or means to the greater end, which is the fulfillment of our humanity. Yes, I am passionate about it, and it is my belief.

 

Sorry for the rant. It gets me emotional.

 

What is so troubling about this is that Christians use that argument to assert that, at the least, theism (and by insinuation, Christianity) and atheism are on equal logical footing. I thought, and still think, that this argument is rebuffed when theism is shown to have the burden of proof for claims about God.

I understand this sentiment. I understand the discomfort it could cause. But I assure you that even if there are on some rare occasion some kernels of truth behind what these Christian apologist ilk use, the context for them is so lacking, and so self serving that it invalidates it at the outset what they are trying to support through that. They lack integrity, and in that, they are emptied of value, both intellectually and spiritually.

 

To me, it would see logical to evaluate any criticism with an open mind, especially when if that same argument is presented from others outside the Christian camps. The danger is in assuming we are now right, and anything anyone says is just an ignorant attack. For me, when I say something like any of this, its meant as a provocation to not be complacent, to not assume some new truth as a "new religion" (in effect), but rather to keep going. Always challenge assumptions. Always challenge ideas. And..... always challenge your conclusions!

 

Does this make good sense?

 

Stepping outside the logician's office for a second, lack of evidence is considered evidence in our courts. If someone is accused of burglarizing some household, the lack of fingerprints at the scene is relevant to the truth of the matter. So are the defendant's gloves, if he has any. The point is that we don't live in pure logic, but rather operate in terms of reasonableness. What is reasonable to believe and why? Very few statements are logical conclusions, obviously. So what?

Again, I have no issues with non-theist, or atheist positions. Not at all. I considered myself one for years, and in certain contexts you could call me one now. I didn't care for the sort of Sam Harris-style atheism when I self-identified as one myself, and nothing has changed in that attitude from then to now. It has nothing to do with how I see things now. It has, and always has had, everything to do with what is in a person's actions. That to me, reflects the true value, the real truth of a belief to that person. it's not just some abstract position, some theory, some metaphysics, but it is about personal growth and transformation!

 

Is atheism giving that to someone? I will embrace that for them and support that for them. Is it just some new goddamn dogma that they transferred over from their Christian experience into some new Truth? I'll respect that for them as part of their process, but I won't respect it when it imposes itself on others in their new/revised Dogmatism. I see it as a weak position, not a stronger, developing one. Don't you?

 

I think the reasonable thing to believe is that the Christian God does not exist, based primarily on the lack of evidence.

I don't believe in the Christian portrait of Deity, not for scientific evidence reasons, but for existential reasons, for moral reasons, for spiritual reasons. However, that said, I also can understand it as a more immature face, a projection of Daddy in childlike anthropomorphic images as a stage of development, hopefully; much in the way a child develops imaging their mommy and daddy will make everything OK for them, that they control the world because they're all powerful in his eyes. So in that light, I don't feel quite so much need to call them stupid idiots. After all, it appealed to me at one point? That must same something.

 

I see an enormous difference between the reasonableness of atheist and theist beliefs.

No. Not necessarily. If you define theism as the mythological image of God presented in the Bible, then yes! I agree. Atheism is a step forward, away from myth into reason. But no, if I personally was to view atheism as the final and highest step for mankind. I can see theism, in a non-literal, symbolic approach, a mask on That which is beyond the mask put on the Infinite, which they give it the name "God"; then I personally can see that itself as tool to something beyond what we have in all our empirical, science based worldviews. I can see theism useful to this. I may or may not find it useful to me. But it isn't theism that would be the end, but the Infinite itself. And that, is beyond any system. That is the Goal.

 

This is what I believe, but that is not my "conclusion". That's always evolving, and needs to - for all of us. And that's the power of breaking free from Dogma. Right?

 

 

Thanks for inspiring me to share all this.

[Dhampir]

I would assert that a belief is, at the very least, a preliminary conclusion

[Vigile]

What if "God" was not an object, a thing like a Yeti or a Penguin that can be measure, examined, dissected, or scrutinized with the tools of science? What if "God" is all things? Then would saying "credible evidence" be sort of the wrong criteria? And then following suit, would saying that scientific evidence is the only valid critera, in itself be defining reality and the measure of it, in a sense presuming sufficient knowledge to 'conclude' that, sort of like a type of human-omniscience?

 

God being all things seems like a nonsensical statement. Is this god aware? Is he like a sponge, an organism that finds function by organizing with other organisms? What's the point of even creating a definition like this. It just seems meaningless other than to create a paradigm for which those who are spiritually oriented to feel better about themselves. Not trying to be a smart ass here.

[Vigile]

My point was you claim that Atheism is a conclusion. That means that after weighing the evidence, the conclusion is there is no-god. The only way that is not a belief is if you have evidence supporting a positive position of No-God. It is impossible to prove a negative, so there can be no conclusion to the matter. Ever.

 

Only if your conclusion is that there is no god. This is a bastardization of the typical atheist position. I don't believe in god. I don't have to provide evidence for the fact I don't believe in god any more than I have to provide evidence for the fact I don't believe in Santa. I can provide you with reasons why I don't believe, but the lack of belief here isn't a statement of fact, it's a description of where I'm at.

[Guest Valk0010]

Could it be said that both theism and atheism are both a conclusion and a belief. You believe if your a weak atheist, that based off of what you know and think, there is no god. The belief part comes from the fact you don't have absolute knowledge, a final conclusion in this area, would come only with absolute knowledge. The belief comes from the fact you don't have absolute certainty. Without that certainty you have a conclusion that could change you believe your right on. you believe your right based of what your know. If you can't know everything there is, to prove if there is or isn't a god, then your stuck with belief.

[bdp]

Conclusion.

[pitchu]

What if "God" was not an object, a thing like a Yeti or a Penguin that can be measure, examined, dissected, or scrutinized with the tools of science? What if "God" is all things? Then would saying "credible evidence" be sort of the wrong criteria? And then following suit, would saying that scientific evidence is the only valid critera, in itself be defining reality and the measure of it, in a sense presuming sufficient knowledge to 'conclude' that, sort of like a type of human-omniscience?

 

God being all things seems like a nonsensical statement. Is this god aware? Is he like a sponge, an organism that finds function by organizing with other organisms? What's the point of even creating a definition like this. It just seems meaningless other than to create a paradigm for which those who are spiritually oriented to feel better about themselves. Not trying to be a smart ass here.

 

Vigile's outlook is mine, as well.

 

The more specifically defined God is -- or anything is -- the better the chance for a meaningful discussion.

 

If someone made the claim to me that God is "All Things" I would have to reply, "But we English-speakers have a perfectly good term for 'All Things' and it is 'All Things.'" To drape the God mantle over that perfectly good and comprehensible term seems to me to be sort of shifty... because now we aren't discussing 'All Things' and instead are discussing 'All Things Plus,' (plus being an extra coat of paint? a shiny shimmer? What?!) And the instant that this God mantle, this "something extra" is added to 'All Things' it becomes subsumed into 'All Things,' anyway, so what was the point of calling 'All Things' God?

 

I don't mean to be cranky about this, but such circular reasoning and malleable defining has driven me nuts for at least five decades of my 68 years, so cranky may just be the entitlement of so long an engagement... maybe in place of Social Security.