# Why do atheists insist that atheism is a 'non-belief'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281 "2010-12-15T20:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/261 "2010-12-17T22:21:48Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Here’s my point: There are now (and have been throughout history) many intelligent people, with high “levels of ability in terms of logical reasoning”, who have believed in God/gods. This does not mean that God exists. But, I suggest that it means that the existence of God cannot be dismissed as easily as some people suggest. We have much more information than they did, making it easier for us to shine the light of knowledge into those dark gaps deities supposedly reside in. Logic \< Logic + Information ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/262 "2010-12-17T22:31:35Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > Here’s my point: There are now (and have been throughout history) many intelligent people, with high “levels of ability in terms of logical reasoning”, who have believed in God/gods. This does not mean that God exists. But, I suggest that it means that the existence of God cannot be dismissed as easily as some people suggest. That was then and this was now. Tom Paine, in _The Age of Reason_, clearly states that he is not an atheist, and that some god is required because he cannot see another way the Solar System could have such a regular structure. (He thought the Christian Bible was a hunk of junk.) But if he were alive now he’d know how this is, and might be an atheist. God was perhaps the simplest explanation hundreds of years ago, no longer. > [@](#): > > .Just because it has been mentioned, doesn’t make it true. 😉 I said nothing about a “pre-ordained” role, just a role. People do have roles in life, right? Son, father, teacher, leader, follower, etc. I get along quite well with no “why”, so it is true. I’m not arguing that some people don’t feel the need for a why, in fact I’m saying that this is precisely why they believe. There are plenty of reasons why people believe - not so many to think that the belief is true. Certainly not this one. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/263 "2010-12-17T22:43:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That was then and this was now. Tom Paine, in _The Age of Reason_, clearly states that he is not an atheist, and that some god is required because he cannot see another way the Solar System could have such a regular structure. (He thought the Christian Bible was a hunk of junk.) But if he were alive now he’d know how this is, and might be an atheist. God was perhaps the simplest explanation hundreds of years ago, no longer. I agree with you. But, as your example points out, the existence of God explained something and then science came up with a better explanation, and a theist would probably have become an atheist because of that better explanation. That’s been my point. > [@](#): > > I get along quite well with no “why”, so it is true. I’m not arguing that some people don’t feel the need for a why, in fact I’m saying that this is precisely why they believe. > There are plenty of reasons why people believe - not so many to think that the belief is true. Certainly not this one. So, you “get along quite well with no ‘why’” and yet you talk about “why they believe” and “why people believe”. :dubious: I guess you need some “whys” and not others. ---
**Author:** ![Galileo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/85e7bf/32.png) [@Galileo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galileo)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/264 "2010-12-17T22:55:09Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We have much more information than they did, making it easier for us to shine the light of knowledge into those dark gaps deities supposedly reside in. And yet a recurring theme is that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing else. Apparently, information has nothing to do with that conclusion. Nor do atheists require alternative explanations for those things that were explained from a theistic perspective. Nope, atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing less. > [@](#): > > Logic \< Logic + Information Are you suggesting that logic without any information has some value? I think that you meant “Logic + information \< Logic + information + more information.” I agree. And, I think that’s the rationale for atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/265 "2010-12-17T23:01:30Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > So, you “get along quite well with no ‘why’” and yet you talk about “why they believe” and “why people believe”. :dubious: > > I guess you need some “whys” and not others. I guess I’m just whyser than you. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/266 "2010-12-18T02:50:16Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > And yet a recurring theme is that atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity. Nothing more, nothing else. Apparently, information has nothing to do with that conclusion. Of course not, because disbelief in gods or anything else is the default position to take. > [@Galileo](#): > > Nor do atheists require alternative explanations for those things that were explained from a theistic perspective. Of course not, because such theistic explanations are worse than worthless. “I don’t know” is a superior alternative to “this logically inconsistent being that no one can see and for which I have no evidence did it!” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/267 "2010-12-18T05:15:37Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > God defies physical law… How do we/you know this? There was a time that being able to talk to someone across an ocean defied physical law, yet when we learned more we saw that it really didn’t. What make you so certain that if we understood everything, that a Creator God wouldn’t fit into things logically? I guess it this all might depend on where along the curve to perfect knowledge you think we are. Do we have 1% more to learn. Or 99%? In other words, God defies physical law, unless he doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/268 "2010-12-18T05:34:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > In other words, God defies physical law, unless he doesn’t. The easiest resolution to the apparent contradiction of God and the laws of physics is that God doesn’t exist. Or, to be accurate, the contradiction between descriptions of God and the laws of physics, hence my earlier point that we have no reason to believe any human religion contains an accurate description. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/269 "2010-12-18T05:50:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How do we/you know this? For one thing, because God as typically described - omnipotent - by definition defies _all_ possible, all conceivable laws of physics because if such laws applied he wouldn’t be omnipotent. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/270 "2010-12-18T06:17:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How do we/you know this? > > There was a time that being able to talk to someone across an ocean defied physical law, yet when we learned more we saw that it really didn’t. What make you so certain that if we understood everything, that a Creator God wouldn’t fit into things logically? I guess it this all might depend on where along the curve to perfect knowledge you think we are. Do we have 1% more to learn. Or 99%? > > In other words, God defies physical law, unless he doesn’t. How do we know a talking duck wouldn’t fit into things logically? It’s a really stupid argument: “We don’t know everything, so this one particular thing that I believe in might be true after all. So there.” The problem, is that somehow you have taken your own belief system and elevated above all the rest. Unless of course you spend as much time thinking about a talking duck as you do about God, which your posts show no evidence of. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/271 "2010-12-18T09:58:56Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > . In general, we assimilate the beliefs of those around us, and, at the very least, we are affected in some way by them. Being an atheist in a predominantly theistic society requires a deliberate denial of theism, That maybe true for you, but my society in the UK is, at the very best, apathetic regarding religion. Most people I know are atheist and the media and society pretty much secular. So no denial needed. I admit that will cloud my thinking. > [@](#): > > Also, in reference to "bronze age tribes, you said that “they were ignorant of science in general and did they the **best** they could.” (Emphasis mine.) Isn’t the implication that now we can do even better because we are no longer ignorant of science? Correct, we don’t need the supernatural because we’ve expanded our understanding of what “natural” can do. > [@](#): > > I missed the quick conclusion. What was it? That atheism is not a belief > [@](#): > > I guess the main issue I have with simple (and, I think, naive) dismissals of theism is the fact that many, many highly intelligent people throughout history and today have believed in some form of theism. I am not (repeat NOT) arguing that “God exists because many people believe that God exists.” I am saying that when highly intelligent people believe that God exists, then this suggests that a belief in God cannot be dismissed with a simple claim like “There’s no evidence that God exists.” The argument needs to be a bit more sophisticated. It doesn’t matter how intelligent someone is. If there is no evidence\* at all\* then the right thing to do is dismiss it out of hand. Sophisticated argument is all that theologians have. They twist words and concepts. They bulk out their arguments with tortured logic in the hope of making themselves seem smarter and their arguments cleverer. However, their theories are built on nothing. > [@](#): > > I’ve noticed, though, that some atheists have not examined the deeper issues of theism, and, for them, facile dismissals are adequate. Other atheists know more about about theism than most theists, and it is this additional expertise that supports their atheism. but this is a rationale for the [courtiers reply](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php), which holds no weight at all > [@](#): > > In any case, for the statement “God exists” to be meaningful, there needs to be a meaningful and coherent definition of “God”. Ultimately, that’s where theistic arguments break down. Agreed. It is the first thing they should be able to do, and at that step they fail. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/272 "2010-12-18T10:15:13Z")
> [@Galileo](#): > > I agree with you. But, as your example points out, the existence of God explained something and then science came up with a better explanation, and a theist would probably have become an atheist because of that better explanation. I would word it differently. I would say that people\* revert\* to being atheists when the natural explanations drive out the supernatural ones. Remember, people are born atheist and for millennia before recorded time they were atheist with regards to any of the abrahamic faiths. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/273 "2010-12-18T14:09:32Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course not, because disbelief in gods or anything else is the default position to take. Is there anyone in Poughkeepsie named Albert Smith? No, don’t look it up. I think it’d be absurd to say, “No, I don’t believe there is.” What’s far more reasonable is to say, “I have no idea.” That’s the default position. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/274 "2010-12-18T14:22:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is there anyone in Poughkeepsie named Albert Smith? No, don’t look it up. > > I think it’d be absurd to say, “No, I don’t believe there is.” What’s far more reasonable is to say, “I have no idea.” > > That’s the default position. But we have plenty of evidence that it’s _possible_ for such a person to live there. It isn’t even an odd name. That isn’t remotely analogous to claims about magic sky people. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/275 "2010-12-18T14:29:12Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is there anyone in Poughkeepsie named Albert Smith? No, don’t look it up. > > I think it’d be absurd to say, “No, I don’t believe there is.” What’s far more reasonable is to say, “I have no idea.” > > That’s the default position. Is there an Easter Bunny? Do unicorns and fairies exist? I don’t believe they do. Sure, it’s possible, but there is absolutely no evidence that these things might even exist. Is your position really “I have no idea.”? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/276 "2010-12-18T14:32:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is there anyone in Poughkeepsie named Albert Smith? No, don’t look it up. > > I think it’d be absurd to say, “No, I don’t believe there is.” What’s far more reasonable is to say, “I have no idea.” > > That’s the default position. Is there anyone there named Hunnybunny Crinklepants Cadwallader? ---
**Author:** ![wintertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c68b51/32.png) [@wintertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wintertime)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/277 "2010-12-18T14:47:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is there anyone in Poughkeepsie named Albert Smith? No, don’t look it up. > > I think it’d be absurd to say, “No, I don’t believe there is.” What’s far more reasonable is to say, “I have no idea.” > > That’s the default position. You’re right wrt the second part of his statement, wrong about the first. Trihs knows that human beings exist, so do towns; he also knows – again by observation and experience – that human beings have names and so do towns, even funny sounding ones. So, he has no reason to assume that the mentioned location or the person cannot exist; they might because entities belonging to the same classification do. But without specific knowledge, he can’t say for sure, so the default position is indeed: “I don’t know.” A god, however, is something, that I’m sure, Trihs has never identified as an entity within the observable reality. He also doesn’t know of any evidence in favour of such an existence despite statements that claim otherwise. He knows, however, that the observable reality contradicts such an existence in many ways. Therefore, the default position is “No, I don’t belief.” ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/278 "2010-12-18T16:56:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is there anyone in Poughkeepsie named Albert Smith? No, don’t look it up. > > I think it’d be absurd to say, “No, I don’t believe there is.” What’s far more reasonable is to say, “I have no idea.” > > That’s the default position. is there an albert Smith in Poughkeepsie who can blink me out of existence, see to my soul after I die, cure my son’s diabetes if I ask nicely, or create and populate a world? I have no idea. ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyOgre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@FuzzyOgre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyOgre)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/279 "2010-12-18T17:39:45Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > is there an albert Smith in Poughkeepsie who can blink me out of existence, see to my soul after I die, cure my son’s diabetes if I ask nicely, or create and populate a world? > > I have no idea. See, thats the interesting thing. The religionists have to reduce their god figure to a silhouette before they ask us if hes possible. We merely disbelieve. They denigrate his image. Blasphemy just so that we’ll say “Its possible”. Is there some entity called Random J. Name in Poughkeepsie? Why yes there is, and Ol’ Randy is a paper tiger. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281/280 "2010-12-18T18:14:07Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Is there anyone there named Hunnybunny Crinklepants Cadwallader? Let’s see. I have a lot of experience with human beings, and with their naming conventions. I use this background knowledge of similar entities to move past the default position of “I don’t know” to move to a position of “I don’t believe so.” But the analogy is to an entity for which I lack all background knowledge. If we’re trying to include background knowledge in the analogy, we need to make that match, also. Is there a beetle in Poughkeepsie that makes clicking sounds while it eats decomposing fungal material? I don’t know. Whether there’s an omnipotent entity, of course, requires me to form a belief about something that I have even less background knowledge of. I highly doubt such an entity exists, and I certainly see no reason to act as though such an entity exists, but my default position isn’t to say that I believe no such entity exists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-insist-that-atheism-is-a-non-belief/564281.md?page=15)