Additionally, can a person choose their belief? You are either convinced something is the case or you are not. If fear is your reason for non-belief, then you are choosing a position - to me this seems untenable. — Tom Storm

People change from one religion or political system to another all the time. And that involves choice. Why people choose something is a different matter. But the question was whether atheists hope that there is no God. You only hope something is not there when you're afraid of it. Otherwise you wouldn't care.

"Hi, I am a theist and I have a question for atheists. I hope this does not cause too much turmoil. Do atheists actively not want God to exist?"

In the beginning of my transition to atheism, that wasn't the case. Speaking for myself, I got into philosophy because I wanted to justify my religious beliefs, so it was the opposite. I wanted God to exist and stubbornly stuck with it until I was forced to admit none of the theistic/fideistic arguments were convincing.

At this point, it sucks that I'll cease to exist after a short period of life on Earth as well as some other comforting thoughts, but it also means there is no hell. That's one of the Christian teachings that was most disturbing to me, it's good hell doesn't exist. The God of the Bible is more like the Devil in my current view, so I don't want him to exist.

You are delusional. — Apollodorus

I don't take that seriously.

I don't need to support anything and I don't care about your claims. — Apollodorus

Okay, so you don't care about my claims (though for some odd reason you replied anyway). But why then should you expect me to care about your unsupported claims? Do you not see how this is connected?

Or, if you don't expect me to care about your unsupported claims, then what exactly is your complaint with me? I've already told you I'm perfectly content with the fact that you are not concerned with being taken seriously (which is simply another way to spell "I don't care about your claims"). What's the purpose of this reply?

I told you many times you're wasting your time. — Apollodorus

Possibly. I gave you that reply before too.

You only hope something is not there when you're afraid of it. — Apollodorus

I hope that car is not still blocking my driveway by the time I head out.

People change from one religion or political system to another all the time. And that involves choice. — Apollodorus

People change views when they think they have compelling new information, not because they 'choose' to swap views. Belief is not like a TV remote control with the selection of 'atheism' or 'theism' as a form of channel hopping.

People stop believing in God when they have reasons that convince them and visa versa. 'Fear' obviously can't work as a reason for not believing in something because you have to believe in God in order to fear it.

But the question was whether atheists hope that there is no God. You only hope something is not there when you're afraid of it — Apollodorus

I would think it is impossible to disbelief something by hoping it is not so. You are either convinced something is true or you are not convinced. This is one of the reasons why Pascal's Wager is silly. You can't choose who you love, or what you believe.

You only hope something is not there when you're afraid of it. — Apollodorus

This one is interesting. You could also not want something be there because you hate it, or are angry with it, or you think it is terribly sad, or you think it is defective.

Hi, I am a theist and I have a question for atheists. I hope this does not cause too much turmoil. Do atheists actively not want God to exist? I am aware that many atheists come to their conclusion because they believe God is impossible and other reasons. However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

I think atheism is a false concept on a rational basis. Because there is an issue with the official definition in the dictionary which renders the term “atheist” pretty useless.

It states “ disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” but it fails to qualify what god/gods it is a lack of belief in?
Is it a physical person? Is it the universe? Is it an object or a subject or a place or a thing? Or is it nature or energy?

In order to reject a god you must have a preconceived idea of what that god is. When you reject Christian god you are rejecting all the characteristics of said god outlined in its doctrine -the bible or popular Christian culture - namely that he is a man (person) with a beard that floats around asking men to kill their sons as a proof of faith, evicting couples from gardens, causing disease and catastrophe and promising paradise etc.

But there are hundreds of religions. Should we not go about proving the falsity of each of them before we call ourselves a true “ultimate” “all encompassing” atheist. Furthermore it’s not like religions are static, eternal or finite in number. Old ones are lost to history and new ones develop continuously.
If I create a religion tomorrow - no one is as of yet atheist to it. Only agnostic. Sure they can question me on my doctrine until we reach a point at which they either agree or disagree and so the religion spreads or is rejected.

Suppose you have a religion with no authoritarian figure head. But rather a set of principles and philosophies. It is inherently more difficult to refute because whilst say “ a giant man in the clouds” is absurd given our current knowledge, the existence of “cycles of suffering”, “a means of mental training (meditation) in order to avoid suffering and the idea that nature recycles dead inanimate material into living creatures, is a bit more reasonable and harder to contest. It approaches something loosely scientific and can be argued with reason.”

So if a religion doesn’t require a “personified” god that can speak and behave like a human as we see in Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism etc then what’s to stop us from replacing “god” with the term “nature” (of reality). Surely “everything” is a good substitute for “god”. Everything = all energy (omnipotence), all places (omnipresence) and all information/interactions (omniscience)

Then we could have a strict and conserved dogma just like every other religion but rather then one based on “blind faith” without openness to discussion and questioning, we could have one based on “I’ll believe it when I see it.” A dogma that states if you can show someone that something is universally true (can be repeated, is consistent, not influenced by bias and variables) then it will be accepted as a correct understanding of our god (nature) unless later improved or proven otherwise.

Enter: science. The new religion so far removed from its ancestors that we don’t even define it as such. Much less controlling, manipulative and oppressive and much more fostering of inquiry and discussion and revelation.

In essence if you aren’t god yourself (omniscient and all knowing) and keeping it very quiet, then you are agnostic (not all knowing/don’t know) but you can’t be atheist (refuse to know) towards all religions because it’s just a blind rejection of any possible description of reality which is absurd. Atheism is ignorance, Agnosticism is the process of inquiry and theism is well, I’m agnostic so I don’t know what theism is. Theism is I guess the end of our pursuit to understand the entirety of the universe - the answer to all of our questions.

People stop believing in God when they have reasons that convince them and visa versa. 'Fear' obviously can't work as a reason for not believing in something because you have to believe in God in order to fear it. — Tom Storm

That's not "obvious" at all. You may start not knowing or believing anything but still find an idea frightening and you push it out of your thoughts. By suppressing an idea that has a negative connotation for you, you may end up convincing yourself that the thing represented by that idea doesn't exist or shouldn't exist. People say all the time things like "this can't be true" even when it is. IMHO this tends to prove my point.

Atheism is ignorance, Agnosticism is the process of inquiry and theism is well, I’m agnostic so I don’t know what theism is. Theism is I guess the end of our pursuit to understand the entirety of the universe - the answer to all of our questions. — Benj96

I tend to agree with that. People often have a fear of the unknown and, in particular, of something they have no control over. So, instead of engaging with the reality of it they try to suppress it and end up denying its existence. It's a common psychological defense mechanism that comes into operation in many other cases not just in atheism.

By suppressing an idea that has a negative connotation for you, you may end up convincing yourself that the thing represented by that idea doesn't exist or shouldn't exist. People say all the time things like "this can't be true" even when it is. — Apollodorus

I notice you use the words 'you may' to indicate that this is not certain. I agree with you this is far from certain. When people say things like 'this can't be true' they usually believe it first on order to bury it with a denial. If you were to argue that atheists actually believe in God but deny his nature because of fear or hatred, you would have a more traditional apologist's argument with a psychological component. Anyway this is getting silly since it doesn't actually matter. Thank you for the argument.

In order to reject a god you must have a preconceived idea of what that god is. — Benj96

The atheist rejects theism (maybe even deism too if she is consistently inclusive), or what theists claim about (their) g/G because those claims are either incoherent, insufficiently warranted or demonstrably false. Atheism, as I understand it, denotes a 2nd order denial of what 1st order theism affirms about g/G. It's simply not the case that the atheist must have her own conception of g/G in order to reject the theistic (and also deistic) conception of g/G on its own terms. For instance, I don't need know "what $%#&!@ is" in order to disbelieve you when you say "$%#&!@ created the world" or "$%#&!@ says X is right and Y is wrong" when the evidence entailed by what you say about $%#&!@ is lacking or uncorroborated.

Dictionary definitions are shorthands of common usage and often caricature-like simplifications compared to more technical or specialized usage. 'Atheism' is no different. You're only shadowboxing with your own "preconceived idea", Benj96, while not addressing atheism as (many? most? very strict?) atheists – nonbelievers – actually use the term. We do not "reject whatever g/G is" but rather we reject only what you "believers" say about g/G.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." — Stephen Roberts

I think atheism is a false concept on a rational basis. Because there is an issue with the official definition in the dictionary which renders the term “atheist” pretty useless. — Benj96

Words do not have meaning, they have usage. Dictionaries are pretty limited. Most atheists I know would say they have not heard a good reason to accept the proposition that a God of any kind exists. Once they hear one they can accept, they may change their mind.

In order to reject a god you must have a preconceived idea of what that god is. — Benj96

I think that's a bit concrete. Incidentally Christians are atheists too; about all the other God claims and the many God's they have not heard of. How can they commit to one narrow version when they don't know all of them? An atheist would argue that they have yet to hear of any God they believe in. As an atheist I would say, keep them coming and I will consider them. But it is safe to say I have no reason to accept the proposition that a god exists.

But there are hundreds of religions. — Benj96

Why limit yourself to this? There are thousands of versions just of Christianity. They hold different views on morality and on what God wants and who God is. You really can't say there is such a thing as Christianity. What there is are a range of beliefs under a common title. Some Christians try to kill each other. Some are pro abortion. Some think abortion is evil. Some are members of the KKK, some follow Martin Luther King. Some believe the Bible is literally true others think it is just an allegory. These are different faiths. Possibly different religions.

n essence if you aren’t god yourself (omniscient and all knowing) and keeping it very quiet, then you are agnostic (not all knowing/don’t know) but you can’t be atheist (refuse to know) towards all religions because it’s just a blind rejection of any possible description of reality which is absurd. Atheism is ignorance, Agnosticism is the process of inquiry and theism is well, I’m agnostic so I don’t know what theism is. Theism is I guess the end of our pursuit to understand the entirety of the universe - the answer to all of our questions. — Benj96

You have a concrete version of atheism. Did you grow up in a religious household? An atheist doesn't generally 'refuse to know' that seems to be a clumsy and fallacious statement. Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

There are many forms of atheism, the best in my view argue that there is no reason to accept the proposition that a deity exists. Incidentally atheism and agnosticism address two different categories. The atheism part addresses the belief component the agnostic addresses the knowledge component. This is why there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists. I would put myself into this category. I can't know if there is or is not a god (just as I can't know if there are or are not aliens) but I don't have good reason to believe in one. It's pretty simple. You can't choose your beliefs. Most agnostics in my view are atheists. They may say they don't know but technically they do not have a belief in any kind of god. All they are addressing with agnosticism is the knowledge component.

Atheism, as I understand it, denotes a 2nd order denial of what 1st order theism affirms about g/G — 180 Proof

Yes, but as far as I am aware, denial is often a fear reaction. It is a function of the defense mechanism that seeks to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with or thinks it cannot cope with.

It may well be that some atheists reject the idea of God on “rational” grounds. But not all people are rational, many are emotional and react emotionally to ideas and other things.

I understand what your personal opinion is, but is there any scientific reason to exclude the possibility of that denial being rooted in fear, anxiety, etc. when those emotions often result in denial?

Yes, but as far as I am aware, denial is often a fear reaction. It is a function of the defense mechanism that seeks to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with or thinks it cannot cope with. — Apollodorus

Denial is not always a fear reaction, so atheism is not always a fear reaction. So associating fear based denial with atheism is fallacious.

It may well be that some atheists reject the idea of God on “rational” grounds. But not all people are rational, many are emotional and react emotionally to ideas and other things. — Apollodorus

Sure, you would have to ask the person what the reasons for their atheism. If you didn’t believe them and want to deny what they say and posit fear based denial as their reason then you would have to demonstrate that to be the case. (And no, the fact that it is possible does not demonstrate this).

I understand what your personal opinion is, but is there any scientific reason to exclude the possibility of that denial being rooted in fear, anxiety, etc. when those emotions often result in denial? — Apollodorus

There is no “scientific” reason to exclude the possibility, but only the possibility. All we could say is that that is one possibility until we get more information to conclude one possibility over the others.

any scientific reason to exclude the possibility — Apollodorus

Again the category error. You apparently have zero interest in reason or reasoning or being reasonable. What may be true of an individual establishes only that it may be true for a individual. It establishes nothing about the class, or any class, that individual may be a member of. But this you've been told, but choose to ignore. And that reduces your words to rant, their substance, such as it is, to rubbish

:point:

I don't need to support anything ...
— Apollodorus

So the troll confesses! (Kiss of death (banning) on a philosophy forum – or ought to be) Okay. I won't waste anymore of your time or my own on you, Apollodoofus, here or on any other thread. Good fuckin' luck with that. — 180 Proof

I understand what your personal opinion is, but is there any scientific reason to exclude the possibility of that denial being rooted in fear, anxiety, etc. when those emotions often result in denial? — Apollodorus

If one is an atheist because theistic claims of God are false, then what matters of fact are that atheist in denial of?

Welcome to TPF.

If one is an atheist because theistic claims of God are false, then what matters of fact are that atheist in denial of? — Sunlight

If. But that hasn't been established, has it? Where is the evidence that no atheist ever rejects the idea of God out of fear?

So the troll confesses! (Kiss of death (banning) on a philosophy forum – or ought to be) — 180 Proof

Talking about yourself again aren't you?

Again the category error. You apparently have zero interest in reason or reasoning or being reasonable. — tim wood

So, I'm asking for a scientific reason and you call that "unreasonable"?

There is no “scientific” reason to exclude the possibility, but only the possibility. — DingoJones

Exactly. We can't exclude the possibility on logical or philosophical grounds.

Denial is not always a fear reaction, so atheism is not always a fear reaction. So associating fear based denial with atheism is fallacious. — DingoJones

I never said "always". I said "denial is often a fear reaction". That's an established psychological fact.

Exactly. We can't exclude the possibility on logical or philosophical grounds. — Apollodorus

Yes, it would be overreaching to say it wasn’t at least possible.

I never said "always". I said "denial is often a fear reaction". That's an established psychological fact. — Apollodorus

I’m not saying you did, I intended only to clarify. I don’t know how often denial is a fear reaction compared to other sources of denial but yes I think denial and fear are psychologically linked.

We agree on these two points. I’ll wait for you to respond to the rest of what I said.

"denial is often a fear reaction". That's an established psychological fact. — Apollodorus

Again category. Please give a citation. And could it be that you are confusing ordinary denial with clinical denial, which diagnosis being made, the individual diagnosed may have some issue with fear?

I thought it was Christians and Muslims and such that feared their deities. Odd.

If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
If he has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?
If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest? — Percy Bysshe Shelley (1811)

Please give a citation. And could it be that you are confusing ordinary denial with clinical denial, which diagnosis being made, the individual diagnosed may have some issue with fear? — tim wood

The Ego And The Mechanisms Of Defense by A Freud explains exactly how defense mechanisms work. "Defense motivated by fear", etc.

"Denial is often a fear reaction" - The Essential Guide to Defense Mechanisms | Psychology Today

There is a fine line between "ordinary" and "clinical" that can only be established on a case-to-case basis.

But it is wrong to assert that denial can't be motivated by fear.

I thought it was Christians and Muslims and such that feared their deities — jorndoe

Actually, that's an interesting statement. I tend to believe that fear can work in both directions. Some people believe in God as a result of fear while others may deny God's existence out of fear that he might actually exist.

Do atheists actively not want God to exist? . . . However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

I think atheists don't want god to exist in the same way that theist hope god will forgive them.

But it is wrong to assert that denial can't be motivated by fear. — Apollodorus

And who exactly has claimed that?

There is a fine line between "ordinary" and "clinical" that can only be established on a case-to-case basis. — Apollodorus

There is a fine line between oreos and a glass of milk, that can only be established on a case-by-case basis. Which of course is nonsense. Like your post. Ordinary denial and clinical denial are two different things that share a word. No fine line at all, just difference. Why are you on about this? What are you trying to prove or establish?