And, to clarify, let’s be careful not to conflate “belief” in this context with positive thinking or emotional affinity of some kind (eg. successful weight loss requires belief in oneself). We are talking bout one’s personal ‘output’ regarding the truth or falsity of semantic propositions.
And, to elucidate further, I’d suggest “faith” is exagerrating said considerations of how likely or unlikely a statement is to be true based on what one wishes to be true (if you like, grabbing the Belief-O-Meter needle and wrenching it from where it had settled after surveying the evidence. That’s inot* to say that the needle can’t, for some people who interpret Ockham’s Razor differently, settle on a positive or highly positive likelihood for god’s existence based solely on evidence.)
I see. Let me approach this another way. Perhaps the difference for both the theist and the atheist is those who claim their right to believe as they will and allow others the same and those who believe that their belief is what everyone else ought to believe and make efforts to see that happens. We see far too many egregious examples of the latter in organized religion , but are there no similar examples in atheism?
In your own example, the difference between someone who responds when asked or someone who volunteers the information, in keeping with the comparison used in this thread, why would anyone volunteer a lack of belief about pixie’s or elves? There would have to be some reason to volunteer the information wouldn’t there?
Beyond, say, Hitler and Stalin? No, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that “efforts ought to be made” to stop people believing what they wish. Again, if they’re “strong” atheists, they’re even bigger strawmen.
Would there? Does speaking one’s mind in general need a “reason”? Heck, merely by looking for Peter Pan or Lord of the Rings in the fiction section you are effectively telling the world your beliefs regarding faeries and elves.
Speaking of output, that varies as well doesn’t it? For many people an assertion of belief in God will never happen until they are asked directly. Even those who go to church every Sunday may never bring it up to coworkers or others they interact with until the subject is broached.
You are correct. Unfortunately that’s not the reality of how people operate. We judge and trust or not for a lot of reasons that aren’t completely valid. The good news is that people do change. Personally I think the study was slanted by how the question was framed, but I do think there is a misunderstanding for many about atheists. That can be fixed.
I tend to think that if people were asked whether an atheist can be person of integrity then most rational thinking people would say yes. The study wasn’t spelled out very clearly in the article. “Sharing their vision of American society?” what does that mean? What were the questions specifically? How were they framed? If it came to the idea of us being one nation “under God” then since most Americans do believe atheists would be seen as not seeing America that way {obviously} I think the study is probably pretty useless but this discussion is interesting at least.
As far as elected is concerned. There are a few groups that aren’t likely to be elected. I’d love to see an atheist run for a major office if only to stimulate the discussion. I think if the person had a good background and was able to articulate well it could work. No need to lie. We all of that we need from the believers in office now.
[QUOTE]
Hmmm I thought Hitler was a believer but no matter. There are examples, although their activism might be termed “self defense”
How about Godbusters ? {this could be a** Der Trihs** website 
} or this one.
Well in general yeah. Speaking ones mind without any reason or invitation usually invites the “asshole” label. That’s why I’m trying to break the habit
As for the fiction section…I’d say you’re off base there. How does looking at those books say anything about belief. It doesn’t. I’m reading a book now called “Know the Truth” that my brother sent me. People observing me read it might conclude I’m a evangelical Christian but they would be dead wrong. People who frowned when they saw me for reading “The End of Faith” also drew a false impression.
There are always internet kooks. If they’re “strong” atheists, then only Flat Earthers are “strong” theists, based on Ecclesiastes 3:21. And what is the fallacy called when you characterise a large group by a tiny, extreme constituent? Straw man, that’s what.
OK, going along with those books being labelled “fictional”, then. I would object to phsyics books being placed there, and I assume theists would object to the bible, Koran or other religious source being placed there.
I don’t think so. By the same argument, I could say that almost every Christian is really an agnostic, since they don’t have any actual evidence to show God’s existence, so with that definition, “agnostic” becomes pretty meaningless.
No, because if there is a bear in the woods, it’s possible to actually provide evidence. The person who says there is no bear has no way to prove it, so any burden of proof is kind of absurd.
Sure. Sometimes we don’t trust someone because he or she reminds us of someone that we don’t like. I like your optimism about a possible fix. I don’t think it will happen because a fix would be an continuously ongoing process and there isn’t any incentive for the movers and shakers to install a fix.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Hitler was a Catholic, at least nominally, and in Mein Kampf claimed that his persecution of the Jews was continuing Christ’s work. Whether or not he was a believer is open to question.
The “bear in the woods” analogy is ridiculous. For one thing, the burden still technically resides with the person making the assertion but the larger problem is that a bear in the woods contains an inherent plausibility (and an established precedence) that cannot be claimed for the existence of sky gods. It’s not like claiming there’s a bear in the woods. To take a page from Carl Sagan, it’s like claiming there’s an invisible dragon in the woods.
They may or may not be valid. Just because, say, I remember something happening a certain way thirty years ago doesn’t mean that it did.
Just to keep this from going too far off track: placing specific works of imagination in fiction says nothing about what one believes regarding the persons or creatures portrayed in those works.
I would definitely place the Left Behind books in fiction (or the trash) regardless of my beliefs in God. John Irving’s works go in fiction even though there really are transgendered people, bears in the Vienna zoo, and persons who survive troubled marriages. (I even know one Tolkien fan who believes that there really are elves in the world.)
Something exactly like that. My wife and I are atheist parents and we often used Scooby Doo as a teaching moment.
Say you’re considering a chunk of the galaxy, and you get asked if you believe intelligent aliens live somewhere in that chunk. We can adjust the size of the chunk to your preferences.
Saying “I believe aliens live there” would be okay, but not supported by evidence. Saying “I believe aliens don’t live there” is also not supported by evidence. Saying “I have no belief that aliens live there” seems the most supportable thing, since you are saying that you have nothing to induce you to believe one way or another.
Make the chunk small enough, say including only some red giants, and you can reasonably believe there are no aliens there (like believing the God of the Bible does not exist). Make it big enough, like the whole galaxy, and it might be reasonable to believe they do. It all boils down to what makes someone comfortable to believe against.
That was my point when I defined weak and strong. We’re using it here in a philosophica/mathematical context . By these definitions, strengh does not refer to someone jumping up and down and shouting out their atheism in the village square, and weak doesn’t mean someone who keeps quiet.
Atheism fundamentally is exactly a lack of belief. Some go further into an active belief against, but since lack of belief is included in this position, there is no issue with them being atheists also.
Another take on the difference. Say Atheist A has a high threshold for believing something. Believing Zeus does not exist, or that the god of the fundamentalist position does not exist falls within it. Believing a god he’s never heard of does not exist does not. So, he may just lack belief in this god, while not doing the work to convince himself this god doesn’t exist. If you believe in things at the drop of a hat, as some Dopers seem to, I can see why the distinction is confusing.
They’d be fiction even if elves did exist - historical fiction, dealing with real people after all, goes in the fiction section also.
The real point about fairies is that most people would be happy to express lack of belief, and active disbelief, if someone asked. If someone proposed a tax in order to fund putting milk out for the fairies, you’d get more active disbelief expressed. Almost all of the atheistic activism has been to keep religion out of the public sector, not against religion per se. Often other religious people initiate or support these actions. Some religious people use the distrust of atheists expressed in the OP to accuse those trying to limit intrusion of religion of being atheists. I think many don’t feel that atheists have the right to be protected from enforced exposure to religion in the public sector - they probably think it would be good for us.
I hope you realize that I didn’t do that.
I’m sure they would. I’m wondering what that has to do with the statement you made or my objection. Does it relate in some way other than we’re talking about books?
Good point. There are lots of people who rarely think about it and when asked might say, “Well I believe in …something” Does that make them a theist?
The" logical default " arguement makes sense to me but needs a refinement or two.
Of course if we have no objective evidence about something then the logical default is “I don’t know” {not denying it’s existence} As Clair says , making something up and giving it a name and form and attributes doesn’t make it true.
I do , however , think subjective evidence is valid in forming our belief systems through which we make our choices and interact with others. I’ll take that a step further to say that everyone uses subjective evidence to form whatever belief system they have and in the decision making process.
That being the case I think the logical default is more accurately described as recognizing that we are a belief system still in progress, with still more to learn, and to let go of as well. The logical default as used here may be fun and handy when arguing for atheism but IMHO incomplete when used in this type of discussion. Considering only the objective makes it so.