There are a few threads floating around about atheism, and some of the language has got me thinking about how atheists approach their own observations about a lack of a god.
It seems that there are two ways to aproach atheism:
[ul]
[li]The first is to start with the assumption that there is no god, and then to fit experience into that framework.[/li]
[li]The second is to conclude that… well, not that there is no god exactly, but to conclude on a case-by-case basis the causes of things, and to have come in all cases to satisfactory conclusions that do not involve a diety.[/ul][/li]
I realise that at times it’s probably hard to honestly differentiate between these two within our own motivations, but I think I can say after a lot of thought that I am an atheist of the second category. I also think most other atheists are, even though they don’t talk about themselves in that way.
Maybe this is nothing but semantic juggling, but there seems to be an important difference here as far as how we talk about atheism, both from an atheist and theist point of view.
So, my specific question is: which sort of atheist are you?
My assumption is that atheism generally follows the second option for most people, though language and discussion about atheism paints it as option one, and the conclusion I’m meaning to draw from this is that language has painted atheism into a religious framework that even atheists buy into on a linguistic level. This viewing of atheism through the lens of belief and religion opens atheism up more easily to derision, and also prevents the ‘not concluding that god is the cause for various things observed’ (known commonly as ‘disbelief in god’) from being justified as fully as it could be.
I hope this is straightforward and clear. If anyone wants me to clarify my question just let me know.
I’m an assume-no-god(s)-until-evidence-proves-otherwise kind. No different than my lack of belief in leprechauns and unicorns, though I briefly saw a Ringling Bros. commercial for the latter a long time ago…
Atheism means different things to different people, but by most standards I would probably be considered an atheist.
I neither assume nor conclude that there is no god. I also neither assume nor conclude that gravity exists.
Rather, I rely on probabilities. Based on my empirical investigations, I find it highly likely that gravity exists.
I would say that for similar reasons, I find it highly unlikely that there is no god, but come to think of it, I don’t know of any definition of god that is precise enough to even make god’s existence something testable…
Initial assumption: there is no “Supernatural.” No fairies, no leprechauns, and, no, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus. And no god.
I have never been offered anything approaching proof of anything that could not be explained except by invocation of “The Supernatural.” Prove to me that any one of the above assumptions is incorrect, and I’ll re-examine all of the rest as well.
I’m not sure in which of your categories this falls. I suspect there is some room for overlap between your definitions.
Well, if we’re talking about the God they talk about in the Bible…
I’ve got better philosophical values than HE does. And I’m no freaking saint.
As far as any other God out there. Nah…
When I was a kid it started out when I found out Santa Clause wasn’t comming to town no more. I quickly grouped the two together and dissmissed them as hogwash. (along with the Easter Bunny and toothfairy)
As an adult that hardly plays a factor anymore. My Atheism is based strongly in science and contradictions of the bible.
But really, I’m a type three. I don’t begin by assuming there is no god. I’ve always known there is no god, and that fact has never raised a conflict within me. If I weren’t reminded daily that there are people that do believe in a god or gods, or who insist on labelling me an atheist to suit their own belief systems, the concept of god (or even of some kind of universal “framework”) would not register within my mind at all.
Life is life and that’s all it is. Trying to find patterns and force order upon chaos is an exercise in futility, and I couldn’t begin to care less how a believer would view me or deride my “beliefs”.
Well, originally I was an atheist because my mother was. She never purposely taught it to me, it was just something I picked up.
When I found my own mental footing I simply found the idea of the supernatural as put forward by all that people that believe in the stuff as so illogical and unlikely that I concluded that it couldn’t actually exist whereas the formulas and theories of science made a massive amount of sense.
I can’t say as that fits either of your positions since I don’t feel I made any assumptions other then the accepting logic as a viable way to investigate the universe.
I realized in my late teens there was no evidence for gods, or anything else supernatural. I also realized there was a great deal of delusion and fraud involved in religion, therefore those who claimed evidence weren’t trustworthy. I also finally noticed how much damage religion does and has done, so I stopped believing it was desirable, much less true. That is when I became both an atheist and an antitheist; I see no evidence of any gods, and even if there was evidence for gods I’d try to ignore ther existence and tell others to do the same. I don’t consider theism intellectually or morally healthy; it tends to warp people.
agnostic sneaking into an atheism thread… well no not really, I like to think of myself as an agnostic but if it came down to it i really cannot bring myself believe in any higher being.
the short answer: I am in the second catagory, I would like to believe there is something out there (so I could not worship it in protest mind) but have not found any convincing evidence or arguements to allow me to do so.
I was brought up Church of England, did church/chapel 2-3 times a week until I was 18 though i was 100% dissinterested in religeon for the majority of my teenage years.
In the last 5 years (I am 26 now) I have become very interested in religeon, going to great lengths to study all the major religeons and talk to as many people as ive been able to find from the various religeons to get perspective from. I have read the most accurate translations I could find of the major religeous writings, read books from sceptics, had questions answered by well learned devoutees. I have even checked out fringe religeons such as Mormonism and Scientology.
Much to my dissapointment i have failed to find anything that even vaguely gives me cause to believe in anything apart from mankinds ability to convince itself that what it wants to believe is true.
I originally assumed there was a god. My parents seemed to, though it was no big deal for them. The newspapers seemed to. My friends seemed to. I went to Hebrew School and everyone there seemed to. I also assumed, for the same reasons, that Abraham and Moses existed, and that there was a great Davidic empire.
Then in high school I read, in the introduction to the Bibles in our English book room, about when the Bible actually got written, about the multiple authors, and in no time at all I started questioning and investigating, and the more I found out, and the more I thought about it, the less likely any god was. So I’m in category 2.
As far as Jesus being divine goes, I’m in category 1, for the same reasons I used to believe in god. Investigation has led me to conclude that this assumption was correct.
I believe that proven things are real things, and that to date, no supernatural claims made by anywhere ever have been proven. Thus, not real. That doesn’t discount the emergence of some unexpected, unknown proof of god, but again, nothing to date indicates that this should be forthcoming.
I don’t fit into either of the options presented. I never ‘assumed’ there was no god. It never occured to me that there was a god. At no point did a situation occur, at least that I can remember, which conflicted with this. Even the occassional carol concert, nativity play etc. was just something that we did, I never made any connection to any religious aspects.
Later on, when I was able to think about such things more logically, I saw that religion was something that some people believed in, and that some people didn’t. A bit like astrology, or fate, or tapping a can of coke to stop it fizzing.
I’ve never had any religious belief because I’ve never had the need for one. With or without a god, the universe is an inexplicably-complex place. And with or without a god, we’re in the impossible position of trying to observe and explain humanity, while being human ourselves.
I started with the assumption that if it sounds like fiction it is.
That includes Santa and flying reindeer, the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Egyptian 1/2 animal gods, Greek morphing gods, all religions with angels and flaming bushes and many-armed gods and levels of heaven and hell.
The main religious premise makes no sense to me"Since the world is an unlikely place and/or hard to understand, you must therefore replace it with something even less likely and even harder to understand, and just accept that you will never understand that new thing." This “logic” is a denial of logic.
My default assumption about anything is that it doesn’t exist, unless I have reason to suspect otherwise. Is there a green rock on Pluto shaped like the word “Mensch”? Probably not. Is there a single word in any language describing such a rock? Probably not. Does such a rock exist anywhere in our solar system? I doubt it.
God is one among countless entities that hasn’t strayed from my default assumption; it’s in the same category as a toothbrush that sings Handel’s Messiah, a cat trained to eat M&Ms when the television is turned to Seinfeld, and a submarine staffed by midgets.
My lack of belief in that submarine doesn’t constitute a belief system or a religion; my lack of belief in God similarly doesn’t.
