I’ll make this even more precise, using definintions from MW.
I cannot know[1] about the IPU and FSM, but I know[2] they don’t exist.
[1] know - to perceive directly : have direct cognition of
[2] know - to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
From Atheist Alliance International:
And their values:
Even though atheism can simply be “the absence of belief that any deities exist”, it certainly seems that there can be many values and beliefs that accompany that position.
I believe that Zeus, Cernunnos, and YaHuWaHu aren’t real. I believe that the things explained by them are adequately explained by a different model. The things I believe are incompatible with the existence of any of those dudes. However, if I encountered other evidence, it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise. Doing so would require abandoning some of my current beliefs.
I don’t know; it’s been a long thread.
But the title and OP is about the implication that atheism is a belief, and your arguments seemed to be about supporting that side of the argument.
Well, I conceded earlier that there are certain philosophies that are probably represented disproportionately among atheists.
But they aren’t fundamental to atheism.
A favourite tactic, particularly on Creationist sites, is to imagine that everyone interprets the world a particular way and that atheists begin with beliefs about naturalism and the like. It isn’t true.
In my own case, I make no absolute claims about reality.
The important thing for me is to see things for how they are: if that means accepting harsh realities, so be it. If it means accepting we don’t know something, that’s fine too.
And if it meant discovering that there really is a magical / spiritual element to this reality, I would probably be quite pleased, but I haven’t seen a shread of support for the notion, versus good reason to suppose it’s a human delusion.
The argument has more than two sides, IMO :).
That’s true. I’d venture a guess, however, that a disproportionate number of NASCAR fans find automobiles aesthetically pleasing.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re talking about here; I may never have encountered this argument. Could you link me to an example of someone making it?
I don’t make any absolute claims either. Indeed, for me part of the appeal of a rational position is its self-limitation: AFAICT rationalism cannot recommend itself above, say Creationism, because rationalism recognizes you can’t prove things by assuming the truth of that which you set out to prove. Creationism, not bound by logic, suffers no such limitation on its hubris.
That said, I’m very happy with my rationalist beliefs, and I think I build my entire rationalist edifice on a set of core beliefs (that there’s an objective reality, etc.) I suspect that a great number of atheists do the same thing, and that those core beliefs are as intimately related to their atheism as a NASCAR fan’s appreciation of automobiles is related to their fandom.
I too rely on hearsay; however, it does not mean I have to accept everything without thinking about it. I try to remind myself not to jump to conclusions. Cognitive processing is based on heuristics, so I’m prone to the mistakes of quick and dirty short cuts.
The thing is that I do not need to disbelieve the existence of Zeus. I do not need to go that far. I need evidence to begin forming that belief. I can have a belief that the person preaching about Zeus being real is a wack job without having a belief that there is no Zeus. I only believe that this individual is not qualified to provide evidence. I do not believe the the bible is qualified as evidence for a god; however, I do not need to form a belief or disbelief about the existence of god. From my understanding, propositions of “there is a god” and “there is no god” make similar assumptive errors. We have trouble proving we aren’t brains in tanks or dreaming. Even while I do not have a disbelief in any god, I can still debate people’s arguments that there is a god in the same way I can question any other wack job. We can work together to see if their beliefs are rational.
Well there goes your credibility. 
I think atheists get annoyed when they think people are trying to compare their thoughts and beliefs to how people view religion.
Is it really that important? :rolleyes:
Certainly you don’t need to go that far. But honestly, truly, do you go that far? I know I do: the total lack of evidence for Zeus, coupled with the mountains of evidence for a mythological/sociological explanation for the stories of Zeus, lead me to a belief that Zeus does not exist. If all we had were a lack of evidence for Zeus, I could see where you’re coming from. But don’t you also have a belief in the history of Greek society and human society in general such that Zeus’s being a fictional entity seems like the overwhelmingly likely scenario, so overwhelmingly likely that you can’t help but believe that’s the case?
I couldn’t believe in Zeus if I wanted to. The positive evidence in favor of his fictional status is far too persuasive to me.
That’s not right. I attribute him with creation! Creating everything we know. And I imbue him with the status of He who necessitates no prior cause. Those are far from minor differences.
So even the invisible minor god joe who lives in my closet whose sole interaction with reality is to slightly move my shoes once every 33 years. You don’t have enough evidence one way or the other to draw any conclusion whatsoever about his existence?
In the interest of not jumping to conclusions, you just can’t bring yourself to any disbelief in him?
(BTW: If his existence is really gnawing at you, I guess you come come over in another 12 years to see if he really moves my shoes.)
With the theist control and increasing exertion of that control of our government, it really is that important. That’s what moved me from atheism to anti-theism (or at least anti-government imposed theism).
That’s right. And those values and beliefs can be anything except for theism. Some in other threads here on the SD have argued that it’s synonymous with the values and beliefs of Communism. Not really close to those of the Atheist Alliance, are they?
Yes, it’s important enough to at a minimum become annoyed. It’s annoying when theists pretend that our non-belief is on par with their faith based beliefs and they use it to convince the young and/or impressionable or for some other agenda. Liars are annoying.
I think this is a helpful post. I’d say that all religion presupposes theism, but not all theism necessitates religion. If one is having a discussion about religion, they are necessarily within the sphere of theism. But the reverse is not true. One can have a discussion about theism and not touch on religion. Granted that last possibility id=s rare, but it can be had. That’s what I’ve been discussing all along.
The God I’ve been discussing has no flavor. If he wants something, we have no idea what it is? If he is good or bad, we do not know. All that we know is that this Creator God exists, because we and everything else exists.
Now, once one arrives at that branch of the decision tree, then he/she is free to ponder the particular nature of God. That’s what I mean by “flavor”. I have not tread into that territory.
Even accepting your axiom that a creator god exists, how is this pondering any different from just making stuff up and seeing how well it sells?
And what if any truths have been found along the way?
And since this Creator God exists, we also know that the god who created the Creator God exists. In fact through simple induction we can prove that there must be an infinite chain of creator gods, each a necessary pre-condition for the existence of his successor.
I’m not following you here. I arrive at my position as a result, not as a premise. I’m not trying to sell anything.
You’re assuming that a Creator God needs a cause. I don’t think he does. Because, to follow your point, while our Creator God may have, in fact, been created, when you go back far enough you will find a First Cause. A God who needed no creation.
Then why do you assume that the universe needs a cause?
I know YOU aren’t, but you said “then he/she is free to ponder the particular nature of God”, so I asked what you expect to result from this pondering by unspecified third parties and how it would be different from them just making stuff up.
How and why did you arrive at that branch? And what’s the point if there is no flavour?