Well I'm antagonistic to the suggestion that atheism - at least an atheism for whom religion and God means nothing - ought to be more curious about religion. — StreetlightX

I am not talking about religion.

But I repeat myself.

The subject of atheist's curiosity (or lack of it) is, if you recall, "God? What is that? Never heard of it".

'Be curious' - you may as well say 'don't be indifferent'. What kind of counter-point is that? — StreetlightX

There is an indifference that is born of reflection and research -- one that was informed by curiosity in its early stage. I see nothing wrong with that indifference. There is also an indifference that is born of a lack of resources to investigate all imaginable claims. Nothing wrong with that either. As you see, I'm not antagonistic to indifference. (I can imagine indifferences that are not so pristine, but they are not the subject here).

I was not saying "indifference is bad". I was pointing out that your examples of an indifferent reaction looked more like curiosity than indifference. Your examples. Not mine. And I was noting that curiosity is great and should be seen more often in these debates.

Do you have anything to say in response to these claims?

And by the way I'm still curious as to why you would think that the cliché diagnosis was motivated by chauvinism. Is it a default reaction when speaking with a presumed believer? Is it specific to me? Is there some old discussion of ours in which this stance was perceived by you?

Would it help had I phrased it "God? What is that? *shrug*" ? I was simply trying to emphasize that even having asked the question, our imaginary friends don't give a damn. An atheism that simply doesn't give a damn about whether or not God exists - I don't think, that against this, one can argue: 'oh but you should give a damn because curiosity!'; Well no, that's just being sucked back into the ambit of what it was trying to extricate itself from in the first place. I don't want more curiosity in those debates because I don't want those debates tout court - at least not as anything other than ossified intellectual archaeology (this, though, being a weird meta-debate which I'm allowing myself the luxury...).

I mean look, if one is trying to 'argue against' religion, sure, you ought to know what you're talking about. But if you just don't care, then I don't see why anyone should care. What I find 'antagonistic' is the asphixiating and fake bind where, if you're interested in arguments about God, then you should know the arguments, and if you're not interested in God, then you should also know the arguments. As if all roads lead back to knowing and investing time in the arguments. I think this is crap. Religion doesn't get to be the default ground around which everything else is arrayed as if derivatively and parasitically. There needs to be a space on the intellectual map where people are simply allowed to not give a flying fig about any of it and not be deemed 'incurious' or whatever negative connotation that goes along with not giving a fig. One can simply have better, more interesting, and more pressing things to be curious about than something that has no possible bearing on one's life.

As for the cliché thing - I was being dismissive of your dismissiveness. Not much more too it.

Right, I seem to recall the current Pope has declared a less stringent admission to heaven. :)
That said, there are people on this forum that has declared the above, thoughtful people if you will.

I'm wondering, though, why wouldn't Catholics (and Hindus) make such declarations...?
There's no arbiter around to set the record straight, they can only go by some scripture reading.
Surely it's not a matter of some personal moral sentiments or preferences? — jorndoe

Your theology just got incredibly worse if you think any pope could change anything at all about the Catholic teaching on salvation.

To help, Catholics believe with incredibly limited exceptions (virgin Mary, canonized saints) that they can say nothing at all definitively about anyone's salvation because you can not know the heart of another or the mind of God.

It also specifically says that salvation is not in anyway denied to anyone who is through no fault of their own outside the faith.

S says:

I'm an atheist.

I am too, in some of my moods. Other times, I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic.

But what does that mean? What kind of atheist am I? It means that I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist.

That sounds like an expression of strong atheism. I share it when it comes to Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu and all of the named deities of religious myth. I don't believe that they exist either, though I acknowledge that my reasons are imperfect and that I might turn out to be wrong. I don't believe that the Bible, the Quran or the Vedas are divine revelations and I don't believe that Jesus was God's incarnation or that Muhammed was God's prophet.

In other cases, I accept that it is possible that God exists.

I'm inclined to think that way when it comes to the arguments of natural theology: First-cause, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on. To me, these are among the most fundamental metaphysical problems, and I don't have a clue what the answers might be. I don't think that any human being knows the answers, or even whether there are answers. This is when I enter into my agnostic mood.

However, 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.

The problem with natural theology is that it delivers us to a set of hypothetical metaphysical functions. Tradition has long associated them with God, but I'm skeptical about that connection. Whatever fulfills the metaphysical functions, if anything, needn't be divine in any religious sense. The 'Big Bang' might arguably represent a first cause, but it isn't something that most people would want to fall on their knees and worship, or that people would consider holy.

So my view is that natural theology's metaphysical functions, should they exist, still aren't "good enough basis to believe that God exists" as you put it.

Absence of evidence can be, and in some cases is, evidence of absence.

I agree. And more rhetorically, it's certainly good reason to say that 'There's nothing that persuades me'.

I will disagree with you a bit, and say that I don't want to entirely dismiss things like religious experience or purported miracles as evidence. But I certainly do agree that I remain unpersuaded by it, and think that there are serious problems with these kind of evidences. So I'm more inclined to think that there is evidence for 'the supernatural' we might say, although I consider it very weak evidence and remain unmoved by it.

Michael says:

Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith?

Epistemology certainly seems to apply, at least if the faithful one is making propositional claims about what does and doesn't exist and what is and isn't true. And epistemology is joined at the hip with logic (in ways that remain a bit mysterious).

A problem that I see with divorcing faith from logic and evidenciary justification entirely is that it leaves the content of faith seemingly indistinguishable from the content of psychotic delusions.

I'm inclined to define 'faith' as something like 'willingness to commit one's self to the truth of a belief when that belief is imperfectly justified.' In that sense, we are exhibiting faith in our beliefs almost every moment of our lives.

Defined this way, religious faith is just a rather extreme subset of faith-in-general. And obviously many of our imperfectly justified beliefs are nevertheless better justified than others.

one is free by faith alone, to believe to be true and act accordingly anything one wishes and not be a fool, with only two caveats. That this belief is not in conflict with either fact or reason. Going further, any ridicule of the above point, is by definition, based on faith and as such is a self contradiction.

Streetlight says:

Not enough indifference.

Why must atheists be indifferent? I'm certainly not, for at least two good reasons:

1. If theistic religious claims were true, it's hard to imagine any other fact being more important. No other consideration would even come close. I personally weight that possibility fairly low, so it doesn't really move me all that much. But...

2. The philosophy of religion provides philosophy with some of its most interesting problem cases, both metaphysically and epistemologically.

Still treats the problem of God's existence as a legitimate question, even if answered in the negative.

Which suggests that you are assuming that it isn't a legitimate question. That needs more argument if you want to convince me.

I don't care to convince you, or anyone else. If you think questions about God make sense, good for you. I was simply stating my own preferred position on the topic.

An atheism that simply doesn't give a damn about whether or not God exists - I don't think, that against this, one can argue: 'oh but you should give a damn because curiosity!'; — StreetlightX

I agree.

But "I don't give a damn about whether or not God exists" is not the same thing as "God? What is that?" (with or without the shrug). The first is true indifference. The second is curiosity. If your current example is supposed to replace the first one, then I have no further comment to make about it. (While still commending curiosity on all sides -- of all questions -- as the best intellectual stance, even though I recognize that we cannot be curious about all things, we must select, and selecting non-God stuff is a perfectly fine selection).

That's enough of the meta-debate. On the debate proper, I must note that the word "god" and its equivalents is used by all cultures, and understood even by very young children (of all cultures). There must be a referent of the word (even if it is a fictional referent). And "what is that" is a perfectly good question to be asked of it. (Needless to say, it is not a religious question).

[...] they can say nothing at all definitively about anyone's salvation because you can not know the heart of another or the mind of God — Rank Amateur

That's what adherents of the elaborate religions do. And act on.
You can't have missed the trees in the forests.

[...] the Catholic teaching on salvation. — Rank Amateur

There must be a referent of the word (even if it is a fictional referent). — Mariner

Or multiple referents?
It's not like there's anything in particular to show.

Well, indifference is the opposite of love, so... good job. Referents, evidence, is all nonsense about experiences. For the index of the thing, not everything is easily indexed, particularly with respect to the nature of one's subjectivity. This is best expressed artistically, in my view, but I also do not hold that there is no possible objective demonstration of at least the effects. That love quiets the pre-frontal cortex (akin to flow state), suppresses fear and negative emotions is neurologically demonstrable. That religion focuses on family, health, the reduction of addiction, which is why the high taxes on junk food cigarettes and alcohol are labeled "sin taxes" rather, because they're with respect to self harm. The "genetics", and "nature" and lack of "free will" is making everyone stupid, gross, and die of heart disease.

That you need what is being talked about to be something ridiculous and cartoonish, so that everyone can be stupid, and you can be so smart is just killing you. You interpret everything everyone says to be nonsense, stupid, and wrong, so that they can be wrong, and you can be right, but the reality is that the opposite is occurring, and you're just handicapping yourself, indeed.

Or multiple referents? — jorndoe

Unified by an underlying commonality. Sure. But the question "what are gods?" is about this common trait of gods (and equivalent beings), not about any given god. "What are dogs?" is not properly answered by "Lassie", or by a description of Lassie.

not sure your point here, but I wasn't making any argument, just giving you the correct Catholic teaching.

I see no reason to criticise your position, because in the OP, you do not suggest that people are mistaken if they have a different position.

Taken literally, the OP just says - I don't believe in god(s) and here's why. Tell me if you think you have an objective criticism of that.

As a devout pluralist, my response is Absolutely Not. It seems from some of the posts since, that some have interpreted your post as implying that you think people are being unreasonable if they do not share your position. I don't get that sense from reading the OP. Did you mean to imply that, or are others just over-interpreting your post? — andrewk

They might be mistaken and they might be unreasonable. Some almost certainly are.

Thanks what I was looking for, a clear straightforward unambiguous answer. Thank you! Huge time saver. — Jake

I wish I could share your in your glee, but you've been a disappointment. You have failed to rip my position to pieces or demolish it, as you claimed. You haven't even scratched the surface. And an unclear reference to a set of conditions isn't very helpful.

"What do you mean "lip profession?"
The profession of the lips, the declared profession of faith in this case.


Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service — SnoringKitten

What l'm trying to say is: the person's lip service is as important to the definition of -ism, as the -ism-per-se definition. So, you have Atheism the system (= the -ism per se), and you have the lip-profession of Atheism of the Atheist.

Consider this though: we don't know if God exists / does not exist. These are unfalsifiable beliefs.

So therefore what remains is what the person professes, the definition pivots on that only.




"I don't know what you're trying to say with this "lip" stuff. If you mean that "this is what atheists and agnostics actually profess", then you're just wrong. Atheists overwhelmingly do not claim to have proof no god's exist, and overwhelmingly do not claim to posses the positive belief that no possible gods could exist. Many people do misuse the term agnosticism to refer to some kind of fence-sitting position, but that definition is a complete departure from how it is used in philosophical literature."

You have not read the OP, please read the OP. I am arguing for a redefining. Whatever the previous definitions were, and whosoever was that much of a grand authority to have thought up of them, l care not.

If you think it is pertinent to reply with a restatement of the old definitions that l am arguing against, then you have not grasped the OP.

You say that Atheism = not KNOWING there is no God but thinking there is no God. Okay as l've said earlier in the replies: OK let's have it that Atheism = lip profession that "I have looked at the arguments for/against, and for NOW, l BELIEVE there to be no God".

As for Agnosticism NOT being fencesitting, then what is it? A belief that a person doesn't know either way? Seriously do you even consider this? It is the time-honoured basis of Theism / Atheism. Why deny for Theists the scientific confession that we don't know God exists / does not exist for a fact, and turn it into a cargo cult called Agnosticism and when someone comes to point out how illegit it is as a separate belief, you respond "ahhh but you don't get it, ahhh" well how about answering the objections to it in the OP? Those objections destroy Agnosticism.

I put it to you that the destruction of "Agnosticism" which l am proposing, leaves Atheism barenaked as a frail position, because previously Agnosticism had served as the basic truth of unfalsifiability of God/No-God, & Atheism chirps in by saying "give me proof, all i ask is that".

No, the unfalisifiability of God/No-God was the basis of Atheism & Theism before the newfangled term Agnosticism sashayed in.

So now that the confession that we do not KNOW God exists / does not exist has been restored as the universal basis for both Atheism AND Theism, what does Atheism have left to cling to? What evidence is there against God existing, compared to an endless stream of evidence FOR God existing? Maybe relegate that to another thread where it'd be more pertinent, a thread wherein if you bring up Neo-Darwinian evolution you will fail, just saying (maybe folks'll offer me a truce, likely at the start of the thread - "pssst ... you can believe in Neo-Darwinian Evo AND be religious, you know?").

To continue: Agnosticism is illegitimate & is done away with in my overhaul of the terminology. Agnosticism claims that a person doesn't know. Well golly, for millennia, we haven't known, that was the basis of belief. See my OP.

Why object when l claim Atheists claim to KNOW there is no God, when previously Agnosticism had been used to delegitimise Theism as if Theists claimed to KNOW there was a God, and you were fine with that because it gave a way to misrepresent and discredit Theism?

Also why does JornDoe (see below) add another axis, about the knowability of God, when either way, Atheism & Theism do not differ on this matter? They differ in the DEBATE about the existence of God, a debate which folks seem to run like mad from.

My redefinitions bring the debate back.




"The simplest and most elegant definitions for theism and atheism are as follows:

Theist: Someone who believes in god
Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god (a.k.a non-theists)"


Atheism as the LACK of belief in God is a new-fangled redefinition of Atheism, when Atheism kept losing in debates, it is not the traditional definition of Atheism. How's that for redefining.

So, it was decided that Atheism says and does nothing, hence need not appear in court, it has no case to answer.

A lack of belief in God, if it were a negatively existing thing, would be best represented by a zero, or a complete silence. Yet, Atheists cluster around the axis of theological debates and philosophy, how strange.

Atheism literally defines itself in respect to God. It has a policy on God. It is on the plane of the debate about the existence of God, not, say, anything to do with the timber / food canning industry. You may note that timber and machinery and cans have an absence of belief in God and you are defining matters arbitrarily if you think they are excluded from your new-fangled "Atheism as lack of" definition.

Also: I wonder what you call the belief that God does not exist?

Also: you define Theist as someone who believes in God. However, as l've stated in the OP (did you read the OP fully?) faith wavers, and if we carve out a noun for every fluctuation in thought within one person, and throw into the works the spanner of Agnosticism which is totally illegit, then we end up with a carnival of chimaeric terms, each tracing their illegitimacy to the illegit term "Agnosticism" in one way or another.

Add to the chaos: now that we've given our inner feelings a noun, a station, these inner feelings become inviolable and cut off from debate. There is also a gradual subliminal teasing away from Theism into doubt enshrined (Atheism). Agnosticism was ever just a tool for Atheism, but it's an illegit term. Agnosticism is deleted.

My redefinitions:
* Simplify the terms
* Open up the debate
* Delete Agnosticism because it's completely illegit and a subverise tool to take doubt as a halfway house and eventually enshrine it as Atheism, which when exposed to debate tends to wilt away, so, the next measure is denial: l don't need to say nothing, l said nothing, l know of nothing because ... Atheism isa lack of belief






"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."

Hello, this relates to my OP how?










"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)"


You realise that is what my OP solves, right?

And no, what misleads / confuses, is when different zones are mixed up. The back end arguments (Reasoning / Debate) are conflated with the lip profession (Conclusion), all given one composite noun.

You are Ruritanian. Maybe you are a Ruritanian with neo-liberal economic tendencies who supports the Orange party. But your nationality is Ruritanian. This is a generalisation. This makes things simpler, by segregating the reasoning from the conclusion. Or would you have specific passport categories for each Ruritanian?

In the same vein:
No longer are you an Agnostic Theist because you are an Agnostic Theist.
Conclusion is no longer conflated with the Reasoning and thereby ringfenced as your personal identity, inviolable, undebatable.
You are now a Theist by lip profession, and you have the following crisis in faith: A means B therefore surely C could also mean D?
So the debate is open.





As for your diagram, my redefinitions do away with all that.

The lip profession is either: Atheist or Theist.

The debate is there to prove itself. The debate is now alive with everything to play for. Who would sincerely put nouns on these stances whilst standing off from actually debating them? I would guess someone that always loses these debates (Atheists). Is God unknowable or knowable? Prove it via facts or reasoning. Instead of giving it names and colours and making it look like a pie, that's not even debate.

Btw, why add this other axis, about the knowability of God, to this context, when either way, Atheism & Theism do not differ on this matter? They differ in the DEBATE about the existence of God, a debate which folks seem to run like mad from.

[EDIT: Oh l get it, this is just another ploy to hide Agnosticism, smuggling it away from criticism (notice how Agnosticism doesn't raise its head above the parapets in your piechart, it is no longer an independent position, it can't be assailed, [b][i]but it still gets its own chimaeric nouns[/i][/b], woohoo!), so keeping it as a half way house toward Atheism, all the while forbidding debate because debate then attacks a person's self-identity which is a major no-no]

You have failed to rip my position to pieces or demolish it, as you claimed. You haven't even scratched the surface. — S

If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you would have complied with the very easy and simple instructions I've provided to you about 4 times now.

If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you'd already be engaged in trying to do that yourself. What we've learned is that, at the best, your level of motivation for such an inquiry is extremely low. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And there's also nothing wrong with an old fellow who has already typed all this up about a billion times over 20 years declining to spoon feed you analysis you don't actually want so that you can burp it back up on my shoes. Sorry, you missed this boat, and should have caught me ten years ago when I was foolish enough to engage in such operations.

I've provided you with all the clarity on your position that you currently deserve or desire. I've taught you that you don't actually want an effective challenge to your position. And I'm placing my hand on your shoulder to assure you that there's nothing at all wrong with that.

That sounds like an expression of strong atheism. — yazata

On the contrary, it sounds like an expression of weak atheism, not strong atheism, as it uses "I don't believe" instead of "I believe".

I'm inclined to think that way when it comes to the arguments of natural theology: First-cause, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on. To me, these are among the most fundamental metaphysical problems, and I don't have a clue what the answers might be. I don't think that any human being knows the answers, or even whether there are answers. This is when I enter into my agnostic mood. — yazata

You seem like more of an agnostic, at least in spirit, than I am, in the sense that you seem to take more of a neutral stance. I don't think that that impression best sums up my view, so I call myself an atheist more often. I am an agnostic in the sense that there are things that I don't know, and which I'm willing to admit to. However, I wouldn't sit on the fence if I thought that the cosmological argument was a terrible argument, even if I wouldn't go as far as ruling out the possibility that I'm wrong about it, or that it's actually a sound argument. I think that most people aren't willing to go that far, actually. If I find something to be implausible or to be lacking explanatory power or to be lacking a strong evidential basis or to be going against the principle of Ockham's razor or something similar, then these kind of things factor against it in my view.

The problem with natural theology is that it delivers us to a set of hypothetical metaphysical functions. Tradition has long associated them with God, but I'm skeptical about that connection. Whatever fulfills the metaphysical functions, if anything, needn't be divine in any religious sense. The 'Big Bang' might arguably represent a first cause, but it isn't something that most people would want to fall on their knees and worship, or that people would consider holy.

So my view is that natural theology's metaphysical functions, should they exist, still aren't "good enough basis to believe that God exists" as you put it. — yazata

Yeah, I get that, and I've made a similar point.

I agree. And more rhetorically, it's certainly good reason to say that 'There's nothing that persuades me'.

I will disagree with you a bit, and say that I don't want to entirely dismiss things like religious experience or purported miracles as evidence. But I certainly do agree that I remain unpersuaded by it, and think that there are serious problems with these kind of evidences. So I'm more inclined to think that there is evidence for 'the supernatural' we might say, although I consider it very weak evidence and remain unmoved by it. — yazata

We're actually in agreement on that. I clarified somewhere that I don't claim that there's no evidence. There are examples of weak evidence.

I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. — S

I don't know if I agree or not with you, since I don't know what you mean by the word "god". To keep up with the meme theme (if only because it is a nice turn of phrase), if you mean "the angry old man in the sky", then I agree with you, and I don't believe that exists; at least not if we take this to be a description of another object (actual or potential) of our experience. But if you use the expression "angry old man in the sky" (which is, after all, only an aspect of, say, the Christian God) as meaning "the love of justice that, without having a clear source from among our objects of experience, finds an authoritative voice in the heart of anyone who has been wronged", I cannot agree that this does not exist.

One of the problems with theist/atheist interactions is that they usually don't take the time to sort out the proper use of symbolism in discourse, and plunge into the debate without realizing that they are speaking different languages.

I don't know if I agree or not with you, since I don't know what you mean by the word "god". — Mariner

That's not necessary. Surely you know whether you believe in anything that you'd call "god"? I don't see how you could catch me out on that one, since I don't believe in, say, "the angry old man in the sky" sort of god, or the kind of "doesn't make any real difference" impersonal, noninterventionist sort of god, and I've discounted all instances of wordplay whereby what's called "god" is actually just something that I already believe in, or which I could believe in as an atheist, and is compatible with atheism, despite any superficial appearance to the contrary. What's the alternative? I don't think that there is one. I've covered all bases.

To keep up with the meme theme (if only because it is a nice turn of phrase), if you mean "the angry old man in the sky", then I agree with you, and I don't believe that exists; at least not if we take this to be a description of another object (actual or potential) of our experience. But if you use the expression "angry old man in the sky" (which is, after all, only an aspect of, say, the Christian God) as meaning "the love of justice that, without having a clear source from among our objects of experience, finds an authoritative voice in the heart of anyone who has been wronged", I cannot agree that this does not exist. — Mariner

The latter falls into the discounted category. Anything that an atheist can believe without contradiction should be discounted for obvious reason; and an atheist can believe, without in doing so contradicting his position, that there exists a love of justice that, without having a clear source from among our objects of experience, finds an authoritative voice in the heart of anyone who has been wronged.

You probably won't like having your interpretation discounted, but I base my thinking on what's sensible, not on what others like or do not like.

One of the problems with theist/atheist interactions is that they usually don't take the time to sort out the proper use of symbolism in discourse, and plunge into the debate without realizing that they are speaking different languages. — Mariner

That can be avoided with a sort of disclaimer, so to speak. You can speak your different language, just don't expect me to go along with it.

not sure your point here, but I wasn't making any argument, just giving you the correct Catholic teaching. — Rank Amateur

I'm an Atheist who grew up and still lives amidst Catholics, and what you say is certainly what they preach. But it's also, generally, what they do. Nobody's ever told me I'll go to hell for not believing in God. I generally come away with the impression that all "good" people go to heaven, and when I ask what "good" might mean, I'm a lot more likely to get counter questions than a sermon (which is consistent with the idea that your relationship with God is personal). There are probably regional differences when it comes to practise, though. I live in Austria. How about Ireland? Brazil? Indonesia?

I'm a relativist, so I'm fairly sure what millieu you start out in is rather important. Nobody's an atheist because the cornerstone of their worldview is the non-existance of God. Generally, an atheist has a world view of his own, like any other person, and that world view does fine without God, but they only ever notice that when they consider theists, and so your atheism will likely have certain focus, depending on what theist intrusion in your life looks like.

I grew out of God (the Roman Catholic variety) together with the Easter Bunny, so the image of God I have inside is rather childish. Other people grew up and their concept of God grew up with them, but they have problems making themselves understood by me, because it all looks equally childish to me. But, see, the childishness is mine. I'm aware of that. None of the people around me believe in that childish God who is the only one I can imagine. Curiosity? At that point, people very rarely tell me things I haven't heard before. The likelihood that I spend a lot of time listening to things I've heard multiple times before is high, and the likelihood that I finally get it now is low. That puts a dampener on my curioristy, to be honest.

I'm lucky in that people who talk to me, generally don't try to convert me, so I don't have much in the way of an aversion to God talk. My childhood God memories are full boredom and repetitiveness and unenlightening religious education, so the concept of God is vaguely associated with boredom. I'm not really curious about God at all, but I do want to understand theists, and that's a minor interior conflict that can at times escalate.

Generally, there are points of friction in daily life. My mum, for example, thinks I'd be happier if I could talk to God. Well, that may be true, but I can't, since I don't believe He's there. Now, when I'm visibly depressed is when she most wants to bring it up, and when I least want to hear about it.

It's also a little grating, when you're trying to figure out the details of what you believe in (emotional reactions and self-observations are the cue), and all the present theists have to contribute is "What about God." Being an atheist is, as strange as it may sound, already a concession to theists. On my own, I'm fine just being primarily a relativist, a not-quite naturalist, a hardly-at-all-but-maybe-a-little humanist, and so on. It's not easy to figure out what I believe, so, dear theists, please don't distract me with God. We'll talk later, yes?

Those aren't grave problems, but they do provide little hiccup in the daily praxis of theist/atheist interaction. Now imagine, if an atheist were to face grave problems (say, legal persecution), wouldn't they have more of a baggage with the concept of God than I have?

Atheism isn't a philosophical position; it's a way to classify various philosophical positions (from naturalism over secular humanism to nihilism). And often for an atheist to talk about God at all is to abandon their home-territory: God just isn't a very important concept in their native believe structure. (Ex-theists may have it easier, at least, if their memory is good. And I imagine for some I-don't-believe-in-God-but-I-used-to is a rather important mental gestalt.)

Would I believe in God, if I had evidence? To me that line is a red herring. No theist I know personally is waiting for evidence for God. One once told me that everything is evidence for God. Nobody's trying to set up God experiments with the hope of creating a miracle machine. Prayers suffice (and are more respectful to God, too). If there were such a thing as "scientific evidence for God", I'd expect theists to tell me what it is. "God" is their concept not mine. Nobody I know personally has ever put forward such thing. Nobody's ever seemed in interested in such a thing. I can't accept evidence for a blank concept in my mind, and even theists would laugh at me if I were to look for evidence for that childish God-concept I have inside. If I ever have a change of heart, it's going to have to come from some personal experience, rather than empiricist reasoning.

I've typed up and deleted replies to some of the other threads that float around. It's fiendishly hard for me to come up with posts that I wouldn't immediately regret after clicking "post comment". It's probably easier here, since this thread is more about what being an atheist is like than it is about proving or disproving things that aren't very relevant to my day-to-day business.

I don't see how you could catch me out on that one — S

I was not expecting to catch anything. I wanted to know what you meant by the sentence I highlighted. I still do. Let me know if you want to explain it later.

If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you would have complied with the very easy and simple instructions I've provided to you about 4 times now.

If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you'd already be engaged in trying to do that yourself. What we've learned is that, at the best, your level of motivation for such an inquiry is extremely low. And there's nothing wrong with that.

And there's also nothing wrong with an old fellow who has already typed all this up about a billion times over 20 years declining to spoon feed you analysis you don't actually want so that you can burp it back up on my shoes. Sorry, you missed this boat, and should have caught me ten years ago when I was foolish enough to engage in such operations.

I've provided you with all the clarity on your position that you currently deserve or desire. I've taught you that you don't actually want an effective challenge to your position. And I'm placing my hand on your shoulder to assure you that there's nothing at all wrong with that. — Jake

Behind of all of those words is nothing but posturing. It's all bark and no bite. Excuses.

You expect me to comply with your request, even though I've expressed to you that it is unclear to me what you're referring to. That's unreasonable.

Are you referring to the following?

1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use. — Jake

I'll address this anyway, because I haven't directly addressed it for a few reasons. You're not saying anything disagreeable enough to attract much of my attention, despite all of your bravado and fighting talk. And it doesn't directly address my position.

1) Have a huge investigation? We've already done that to some extent, and it's still ongoing. For that reason, it's a redundant instruction. And it's also impractical, as it goes against the purpose of this discussion, which is about talking about what we know so far, what we're justified in concluding, and so on, and not stopping what we're doing to go out on a huge investigation. If you're into investigation, we can investigate our belief or lack of belief regarding the topic of discussion and our reasons for them here.

2) Discover our ignorance? Already done to some extent, and further potential discoveries is what this discussion is for. So, just another redundant instruction.

3) Accept what the investigation has revealed? Useless without further detail.

4) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use? Okay.

Now what? Your four instructions, or whatever you want to call them, haven't done a thing. We're no further towards any kind of meaningful or productive discussion. You've just needlessly outlined what you seem to think would help in achieving that goal or some similar goal.

You seem to have completely misunderstood the point of this discussion or you're just not willing or able to engage it in the proper way. Either way, I see that as more your problem than mine.

I was not expecting to catch anything. I wanted to know what you meant by the sentence I highlighted. I still do. Let me know if you want to explain it later. — Mariner

You don't seem to have taken into account what I just explained to you in my last reply. Why is that? I'll use less words this time and spell it out to you.

There is no set meaning for "god" which I'm going by, so it makes zero sense to seek one from me. It's flexible. I believe that what I've said covers all bases, and if you disagree, then present what you consider to be an exception. But please don't just present again what you've already presented, because I have addressed that already.

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

Yeah, when’s the show gonna start? I got my popcorn and watermelon bong all ready to go.

Yeah, when’s the show gonna start? I got my popcorn and watermelon bong all ready to go. — praxis

Waiting on Jake. Don't hold your breath.

They might be mistaken and they might be unreasonable. Some almost certainly are.

For any opinion one holds, be it ever so little grounded in reflection, one can say the same about people who don't share it. So the statement doesn't seem to say anything at all.

For any opinion one holds, be it ever so little grounded in reflection, one can say the same about people who don't share it. So the statement doesn't seem to say anything at all. — andrewk

It doesn't say anything remarkable, but then, the line of enquiry which you've pursued thus far isn't remarkable. We need more details about these different views to get anywhere interesting. Maybe pick a view different to my own, tell me a bit about it, and I'll tell you what I think about it?

What details? I'm simply asking whether you are telling us something about yourself - which is how the OP reads - or making a judgement on anybody that feels differently, in particular, people who believe in some deity or other.

If it's just telling, then thank you. It's always rewarding to know more about others' thoughts and feelings. If on the other hand it's a judgement, and especially a judgement that people who believe in a deity are irrational or in some other way poor thinkers, whom are you judging, for what beliefs, and what are the grounds for your judgement?