Not enough indifference. — StreetlightX

I understand this position, but I don't think it is very practical because most people in this world still believe there is a god and think it is a perfectly legitimate question. To a theist, this just comes off as arrogant and condescending. They will not come to the conclusion that you are wiser than they, and that they should just give up on the idea as well. They will think your arrogance has blinded you and that you are only uninformed on the subject.

That attitude would be absurd towards many things like Santa Claus or unicorns, but that's only because nobody really believes in them. If you have any interest in people changing their beliefs to better reflect reality, it is often necessary to understand what they believe and challenge them on their own terms.

Like I said though, I understand the sentiment. I sometimes regret the amount of time I've spent studying popular fairy tales.

Praemonitus praemunitus then, I suppose. My personal feeling is that people should refrain from telling others whether they do or don't believe in God, but far too many of us seem unable to do so, thus inducing others to say yea or nay and perpetuating this tiresome debate (such as it is). When, oh when, will there be a respite?

, you know, theism is the name of this game.
If theists didn't promote and obsess about Amun-Ra Zeus Vishnu Yahweh Asherah Allah Vedas Bible Quran etc, then there wouldn't be much to talk about here.
Leave it to theists to come up with all kinds of diversions (occasionally to avoid the onus probandi). :)

But, if we're talking belief disbelief doubt absence thereof etc, then we could perhaps come up with more general classifications.
This need not be about theism, but more about whatever attitudes (and absence thereof) towards propositions claims statements postulates etc.

The more general the label the less it reveals, the more it misleads/confuses, and the less useful as a label it becomes (why have a 50 page argument about whether or not "babies are atheists" (they are ;) ) when we could just say exactly what we mean and get to the root of disagreements quickly?).

We do have an endless series of labels which denote various positions pertaining to these matters. Problem is they get so specific that less people are aware of them, and hashing the scope of their definitions takes just as long as stating your position without the use of labels in the first place. Here are some examples

Ignosticism
Apatheism
Practical atheism
Indifferentism
Non-theism
Theological noncognitivism
Ietsism
ignoramus et ignorabimus (hard agnosticism)
Possibilianism
Implicit atheism
Explicit atheism
Negative atheism
Positive atheism
And the list goes on (especially if we include every variation on theism)

Im new to the forum, And sense im missing some previous discussion points but...
Why is this YOUR kind of atheism? As far as I can tell, your just describing atheism.
What am I missing? I noticed a few topics on the subject, is it common on this forum for people to not understand what atheism is? — DingoJones

Welcome to the forum. There are different types of atheism, even though it is true that I have described something common to all types. All atheists don't believe in God. But some go further than others, and that's the distinction.

And yes, sometimes there are misunderstandings about what a particular atheist is or is not committed to. Some people will just assume without checking, and it's often strong atheism which is assumed, and often by people with an axe to grind. Some people will steadfastly adhere to certain definitions which might not reflect the views of a large group of self-identifying atheists, and that's another way that misunderstandings can arise.

For example, I am not committed to the claim that there is no God, without qualification. Yet some people have challenged me as though I have a burden of proof on that. I do not. That's a much stronger stance than just saying that you don't believe that there is a God, due to a lack of compelling evidence, which is more like my default stance. The former stance requires much stronger support, hence I will take that position if, for example, I think that the possibility can be justifiably ruled out by the law of noncontradiction, which I think constitutes strong enough support for the stance.

Atheism, in a sense, is a reaction to theism. So, whether I take the stronger stance or the weaker stance will depend on what kind of theism, and more specifically what kind of God, we're talking about. The ball's in their court.

Right, , we could probably come up with a couple *isms just for this thread. :D
Yep, babies are implicit atheists by this colorful diagram:



They never heard of Amun-Ra Vishnu Yahweh Allah etc.
I suppose that's the unpolluted default.

Praemonitus praemunitus then, I suppose. My personal feeling is that people should refrain from telling others whether they do or don't believe in God, but far too many of us seem unable to do so, thus inducing others to say yea or nay and perpetuating this tiresome debate (such as it is). When, oh when, will there be a respite? — Ciceronianus the White

When we're extinct, I predict.

Well, some atheists go further, but that is representitive of the individual atheist, not atheism and what the word means. For example, an atheist could also be an anti-theist and becuase of that, separate trait they “go further than others”.
The misundestandings someone has about how exactly you think about god or form your arguments is a misunderstanding about you. If they then also think atheism means something other than a simple lack of belief in a god/gods then they would be twice mistaken (or have misunderstood two things if you prefer).
I understand there are different forms of atheism that are described in academia, hard and soft etc, but those are specific to philisophical arguements and I think its a mistake to tap them for general usage. In my experience this leads to confusion, and plays into the semantic games used by theists to justify thier position.
My query was more about this specific forum, and the “culture” within it. It seems like things are less than ideal if you must specifically reinforce the simple definition of what atheism is as if your view is in some way idiosyncratic.
My question has been answered though, I should be prepared to quibble with theists on here about atheism being a belief and other such nonsense.

My personal feeling is that people should refrain from telling others whether they do or don't believe in God, but far too many of us seem unable to do so, thus inducing others to say yea or nay and perpetuating this tiresome debate (such as it is). When, oh when, will there be a respite? — Ciceronianus the White

True faith is mystical union with our Creator, where light from His grace shines onto and off of a true believer's face. It's not proselytizing or philosophical theology. So in that much I agree with you, the god of the philosopher is a stuffed animal.

Yet to treat the question of God's existence and His relationship to material existence as a kind of apathetic ball practice is revealing and embarrassing. Your languor and lethargy reminds me of Socrates' interlocutors who sighed: 'enough already, give me rest from such questions'. You caution others to 'refrain from perpetuating this tiresome debate', but you've only shown the numbness and stillness that resides in your soul. The debate itself will forever be on fire.

Almost every colossal thinker from every civilization confronts the question of God and transcendence with seriousness and awe.

"Everyone with the least sense always calls on god at the beginning of any undertaking, small or great'. (Plato, Timaeus 27c)

there is no case I know of where I think it would be right to conclude that there is a good enough basis to believe that God exists. — S

What would you be looking for? What would constitute such a basis?

Then you're a sensible chap, Bitter Crank. I'm not even sure whether those who have recently purported to disagree with it have any kind of problem with it. — S

You might wish to read what Bitter Crank said a bit more carefully. :smile:

I do not have any problems with your statement — Bitter Crank

That's not necessarily agreement with your position. Maybe it is, and he can clarify that to be so. I may be wrong, but I read him to be saying that he doesn't have any argument with whatever you want to believe. If you believe in Baby Jesus, my guess is he has no complaint with that either.

What would you be looking for? What would constitute such a basis? — Wayfarer

I would be looking for a similar basis as that which is behind other beliefs of mine. Why do I believe that there are planets and stars? Why do I believe that I have a body? Why do I believe that I can see and hear? Why do I believe that there's a country in Europe called France? And many other such beliefs. All of those beliefs can be justified in a way in which belief in God cannot be, as far as I can discern. In other words, no special pleading.

That's not necessarily agreement with your position. — Jake

If not, then what's the problem? Oh, that's right, he doesn't have any problems with it. :grin:

Maybe it is, and he can clarify that to be so. I may be wrong, but I read him to be saying that he doesn't have any argument with whatever you want to believe. If you believe in Baby Jesus, my guess is he has no complaint with that either. — Jake

So, anyway, when are you going to rip my position to pieces, like a ferocious clawed Baby Jesus on steroids?

If you believe in Baby Jesus, my guess is he has no complaint with that either. — Jake

Correct. People believe in all sorts of things. Jesus, Abraham, Mohammed, Buddha, the god of the swamp, the god of the wind, Odin, Demeter, Brahma Shiva, Vishnu, etc. And no gods whatsoever. People also believe in the likelihood that they will win the lottery (even though the odds are at least 100,000,000 to 1 that they won't). Some people believe in unfettered capitalism, others in rigorous regulation.

I've been a believer and I know from that experience that there are pleasant features of belief, so I don't have anything against people believing in Baby Jesus or Shiva. It isn't that I think Jesus is going to do anything on their behalf, just that the opposite nullity isn't either. We're on our own. We're on our own in a lonely universe. IF most people are less lonely because of Allah or Ahura Mazda, fine by me.

I get upset when believers want gods to do more than alleviate their loneliness -- like boost their GDP, smite their enemies, lay gold and jewels on them (the believers), fix their parking tickets, cause pond scum to be approved by the Senate, and so forth.

I also get upset when I am informed of my imminent damnation because I don't happen to believe what they believe.

I guess I am a laissez faire atheist.

Why do I believe that there are planets and stars? — S

We see them.

Why do I believe that I have a body? Why do I believe that I can see and hear? — S

These are what are called apodictic truths - those truths it would be implausible to deny./

Why do I believe that there's a country in Europe called France? And many other such beliefs. — S

The declaration that you don't believe in a God, because it's not obvious to common sense, is not an argument. I get that you don't believe in God, but you haven't really offered anything beyond a profession of non-belief.

The declaration that you don't believe in a God, because it's not obvious to common sense, is not an argument. I get that you don't believe in God, but you haven't really offered anything beyond a profession of non-belief. — Wayfarer

You're getting ahead of yourself. I haven't even mentioned common sense. I also believe things which aren't obvious to common sense. I believe that E = mc2. I believe things which have a good explanation. What's the good explanation for the existence of God? If there's a good explanation, there's a good chance I'll believe in God. Come now, don't be shy.

And what do believers do? The profess their beliefs. What more can they who believe in the immortal, invisible, ineffable do?

One thing some believers do is live out aspects of their belief: The feed the poor or slay heathens, whatever they are inclined to do. The least they do is get together with other believers for an official validation of their belief, every now and then.

What is it you would expect from S? Personally, I can't offer you any evidence for either belief or disbelief, and I doubt very much if you can, either. (Suggesting nothing inadequate about you, of course. Just that... how could you?)

What is it you would expect from S? Personally, I can't offer you any evidence for either belief or disbelief, and I doubt very much if you can, either. (Suggesting nothing inadequate about you, of course. Just that... how could you?) — Bitter Crank

It's a philosophy forum, there are philosophical arguments for and against, which are the subject matter of 'philosophy of religion'.

What's the good explanation for the existence of God? — S

The question is, what would constitute evidence? What would you look for, and how? The LHC? The Hubble Telescope? Is God 'out there somewhere'?

The question is, what would constitute evidence? What would you look for, and how? The LHC? The Hubble Telescope? Is God 'out there somewhere'? — Wayfarer

Can we cut to the chase? Are you suggesting that it requires special pleading? If so, then that's simply not good enough. I have standards to maintain and I need consistency, and I think that that's perfectly sensible.

It must have an evidential basis consistent with my other beliefs, in whatever form, whether it's something I can see, obvious to common sense, an apodictic truth, has a good explanation like E = mc2...

Take your pick.

Asking 'what constitutes evidence' is a perfectly reasonable question. You say there is no basis for such a belief. So what would constitute a basis other than that you don't like the idea?

Chomsky: 'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist if you can tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in'.

That quote is cute, but it is quite detached from the common belief in an almighty god who intervenes in the affairs of mankind.

At that level, the issue is the reverse: what is it that one believes about existing states ?

Without setting up which states are the presence of a god, the theist doesn't have a belief in an existing being to investigate in the first place.

Asking 'what constitutes evidence' is a perfectly reasonable question. You say there is no basis for such a belief. So what would constitute a basis other than that you don't like the idea?

Chomsky: 'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist if you can tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in'. — Wayfarer

If you continue in this vein, I predict that we'll go around in circles. I've given you enough rope to hang yourself with. You are more than capable of figuring out what kind of things constitute evidence for various beliefs of mine without me needing to go into excruciating detail. The funny thing is, you share these same beliefs and these same standards. Think about why you believe the things that you believe as I do. Why do you believe that E = mc2? Then think about why you make an exception, assuming you do, when it comes to God. Or, if you can't answer that question because you don't believe in God, then that's the question that any believer in God ought to be asking themselves.

I'm not saying that there's no basis. I'm asking, if there is a basis, then what is it? And if there is a basis, and I find out what it is, then I intend to compare it to the basis for other beliefs, then reach a conclusion. What's unreasonable about that? That seems fair enough.

It's a philosophy forum, there are philosophical arguments for and against, which are the subject matter of 'philosophy of religion'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I've found the arguments presented for religion unpersuasive. If god, God, the gods are ineffable, beyond our ken, immortal, invisible, omnipotent, and so forth -- then our attempts to explain or prove their existence ought to be unsuccessful, and I think they are. Our pious inventions are constructed such that the gods are not explainable by logic.

So why do people believe? The vast majority are taught to believe; some experience conversion (see visions, smell pancakes, whatever...) and maybe several read logical arguments and were convinced. There is nothing wrong with teaching children to pray to god, or whatever else about religion they teach them.

We are religious because we can be religious -- we have the wherewithal between our ears to have faith and everything that goes with it. It serves many functions individually and socially.

You are more than capable of figuring out what kind of things constitute evidence for various beliefs of mine without me needing to go into excruciating detail. — S

I’ve asked a simple question directly relevant to the OP. But I know, already, if I or another poster was to venture ‘a basis’, then that would provide the entertainment that you’re really seeking, which is something like ‘the coconut shy’.

A coconut shy is a traditional game frequently found as a sidestall at funfairs and fêtes. The game consists of throwing wooden balls at a row of coconuts balanced on posts. Typically a player buys three balls and wins each coconut successfully dislodged. — Wikipedia

Sorry for depriving you of the opportunity.

To a theist, this just comes off as arrogant and condescending. They will not come to the conclusion that you are wiser than they, and that they should just give up on the idea as well. — ProbablyTrue

That's fine. I don't care enough to want to convince a theist otherwise. If they're happy beliving in a God, more power to them.

So, anyway, when are you going to rip my position to pieces — S

When you meet the conditions I set, so probably never. :smile:

Do you have many serious and religious friends or family?

Blessedly, no. And even if I did I wouldn't try and ween them off their belief, which would just be a recipe for disaster.

I’ve asked a simple question directly relevant to the OP. But I know, already, if I or another poster was to venture ‘a basis’, then that would provide the entertainment that you’re really seeking, which is something like ‘the coconut shy’.

A coconut shy is a traditional game frequently found as a sidestall at funfairs and fêtes. The game consists of throwing wooden balls at a row of coconuts balanced on posts. Typically a player buys three balls and wins each coconut successfully dislodged.
— Wikipedia

Sorry for depriving you of the opportunity. — Wayfarer

You're quite predictable. Has anyone ever told you that? I've answered your question in my own way. Just because I won't dance to your tune, you're threatening to leave the party. Well, no one is forcing you to take part.

As for the purpose of this discussion, I've already explained that in the opening post. Blame Jake. Whether or not you believe me is neither here nor there. I don't know why you wouldn't believe though. Everyone around here knows that butter wouldn't melt in my mouth.

*picks up a wooden ball*