Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief? (page 21)

agonus

SixOfNine,

I happen to be an "aspie", you tardigrade.

;)

Leolaia

The good news is that poster Leolaia has it also, and no one could armchair diagnose her from her writing here on this board; and in fact she gives us all something to shoot for wrt that whole intellectual agnosticism and honesty thing, imo. :waves at leo: love you honey:

Ah, tx, that's sweet.

I think of AS as a kind of rough shorthand; although I was dx'd AS it doesn't quite fit as I had significant language delay. Such is what I'd expect with categories anyway (and PDD-NOS is not very meaningful).

agonus

I hear Aspergers taste like Buffalobergers.

poincicco

I was a Christian agnostic as a teen, converting to evangelical Christianity during my senior year of high school. I then spent five years preparing for the Christian ministry, which I did as a vocation for forty years, the last twenty-eight of which were spent overseas as a missionary, doing evangelism and starting churches, as well as teaching theology in various schools in western Europe. I officially “deconverted” six years ago. Deconversion is a process, and can go on for many years before solidifying into a declaration of disbelief. So it was for me. I fought it for many years as I continued to teach and preach, but I couldn’t stop the process, I couldn’t avoid the inevitable.

In the end, six years ago, I accepted what my head and heart had been telling me for years: the extraordinary claims of Christianity are not supported by sufficient extraordinary evidence to merit believing them. All the evidence that I had was purely subjective. It was a personal belief-system unsupported by fact. In fact, the actual evidence militated against Christianity or any other theistic belief-system. I quit the ministry, moved back to the USA and into a “secular” job, did a lot of thinking, reading and writing as the dust settled in my mind. I shifted from Christian to theist to deist to agnostic. I wondered if I wasn’t actually an atheist, but, after a lot of pondering, I concluded that I just didn’t have enough data at my disposal to categorically deny the existence of a divinity. I don’t believe in any gods, but I’m not prepared to say with conviction that one does not exist. To me, there’s a significant difference between agnosticism and atheism. I have concluded that, indeed, atheism IS, in some respects, a belief. It builds logically on the data we have available (which doesn’t particularly support a belief in god), but then it proceeds to take a giant step OFF of the data and into conjecture by stating categorically that god does not exist in any way, shape or form. For me, that’s one step too many and moves from honest deduction (which can bring one to agnosticism) into speculation . Having said that, I feel totally justified in NOT believing in God, especially the god of the Bible. The assertion of the existence of such a being is truly an extraordinary claim, and there just isn’t any extraordinary evidence to back it up. Lots of conjecture and subjective emotional experiences, but no genuine evidence. I can’t claim with authority that a god does NOT exist, but the evidence thus far in no way convinces me that “he” does.

bohm

poincicco: "I have concluded that, indeed, atheism IS, in some respects, a belief. It builds logically on the data we have available (which doesn’t particularly support a belief in god), but then it proceeds to take a giant step OFF of the data and into conjecture by stating categorically that god does not exist in any way, shape or form. For me, that’s one step too many and moves from honest deduction (which can bring one to agnosticism) into speculation"

I agree completely with your conclusion, that taking such a jump would one to many. If i may add, it would be unscientific, and a person who did so would most likely be pretty dumb.

But if we leave the dictionary definition aside, the vast majority of contemporary atheists (for example Dawkins) does not take that step. Have you read "the God delusion"? He explain his belief about God in a chapter called "why there is allmost certainly no God" - far short from an outright denial.

The problem is that even though they do not deny it categorically, but rather believe God is a very remote possibility based on evidence, language is often badly adjusted to such destinctions. Its much easier to say: "God does not exist" rather than "I think the chance god exist is very small", even though they mean the last statement. That impresision, and the fact some theists like strawman arguments, is a cause of much confusion, hence this lengthy debate.

oh and WELCOME!

UPDATED.

poincicco

Morning! I can't find a user-name for you in your reply, but thanks for the comments! You're right, many (most?) atheists are "soft atheists", in that they don't believe in god themselves, but they aren't prepared to exclude the remote possibility that such a being does, in fact, exist in some "form" and in some dimension somewhere. The "hard atheists" are the ones who militantly deny any possibility of the existence of a god. These are the ones that I am referring to when I say that they've taken a step beyond what the data supports and moved into conjecture. Yes, the lack of understanding of the distinction between these two positions has, in fact, contributed significantly to the confusion out there about atheism.

Using these definitions, I guess it could be said that I'm actually a "soft atheist", not an agnostic. However, I feel that "agnosticism" is a more accurate definition. I am "without god", so that qualifies me for the label of "atheist." However, I'm without god only because of a lack of evidence for god, a lack of knowledge, and that qualifies me for the label "agnostic." In my mind, the later title trumps the former in terms of accuracy and usefulness. Another element in the discussion, at least in my mind, is one of attitude. The atheist can display a certain militant attitude about the subject, an aggressiveness that comes fro having an actual position to defend and propogate. This can result in them manifesting actual distain for those who believe in a god. I won't say that this is part & parcel of being an atheist, but it does seem to come with the territory for many of those that I've met. Dawkins (yes, I've read several of his books) definitely has this attitude, as do Hitchins, Harris, Barker and other spokespersons for the New Atheism. They have a lot of good stuff to say, but I often find their attitude off-putting. I think the book I've found to be the most helpful is David Mills', The Atheist Universe. Well-written, very readable and balanced, with a good attitude. Even the atheist needs to be able to laugh at himself! I tend to be distrustful of anyone who takes himself too seriously :)

Without apology I say that I do not believe in any gods. But the operative word here is "believe." Believe and "know" are very different concepts. I believe a LOT of things that I don't, or can't, KNOW about with certainty. The available data may not be sufficient for certainty (knowledge), but it's sufficient enough to justify my putting my weight down on a certain position, if only tentatively. I try to be honest and remain open to further light on the subject, but, in the meantime, I operate on the basis of what I BELIEVE up until now. If sufficient evidence were provided for the existence of some sort of deity, I'd like to think that I'd be honest and objective enough that I would accept this, ending my tenure as an agnostic...or "soft atheist" :)

I could probably prattle on here, but my coffee is finished and it's time to get on with my day. Take care, my anonymous friend, and have a great day!

JWoods

Well great - just when I thought something had been accomplished yesterday, I leave and am greeted with FIVE PAGES overnight -

which essentially boils down to the simple fact that there is absolutely no consensus after all on what the word ATHEISM means.

Especially on the part of the self-professed Atheists here themselves.

ex-witness

The main difference I've seen between atheists and deists is MOST atheists are open minded, scientific even. If you were to PROVE the existence of god, well, MOST would be willing to accept REASONABLE, LOGICAL E V I D E N C E. However, since Darwin's unveiling of evolution, it's been nearly 100 years and, if I'm correct in my research, 52% of the world still believe that god made man and dinosaurs and they played together. Despite empirical evidence to the contrary. These same people believe the world is less than 10000 years old.

SixofNine

I happen to be an "aspie", you tardigrade.

I knew that

Terry

I didn't realize my whole life long why I was so.....um.....different in the way I thought, learned, socialized and responded.

Then, when my son reached High School age he suddenly had a breakdown brought on by the demands of a strict school regimen which demanded he learn and perform THEIR WAY.

In the course of the brainscans, psychiatrists, counselors, therapists and such (along with thousands of dollars in medical bills) the diagnosis comes in of ASPERGER'S SYNDROME.

What the hell is that nonsense, I asked.

I read the symptoms. I saw a portrait of ME!

Lights flash, giant thought bubble above my head: THAT'S ME!

It was an amazing moment in my adult life which provided an elegant explantion of my whole life: I'm wired differently!

I can't be what you want me to be because I came out of the factory with different circuits. Your owner's manual applies to MOST people; not me.

I've learned to work around it and make life work for me instead of against.

However, I now see Jehovah's Witnesses as a symptom of my symptom.

DO YOU HAVE SYMPTOMS OF ASPERGER'S SYNDROME?

They are wired differently, too.

Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

Share this