Atheism

I think there's a couple of different types we can try to distinguish:

Hard Atheist: I There are no Gods/There is no God (I believe there is no people, many of them generally ignorant to the limitations of knowledge, but others aware of it, but still content in claiming it as they would not deny gravity or evolution either and find the margin of skepticism negligible)

Soft Atheists: I don't know for sure, but I do not believe there is/are a God/gods (That's what many people who call themselves Agnostics fall under imo, really just some healthy skepticism)

Unknowing Atheists: I don't believe in a God, but that's cause I believe in something else spiritual or never was exposed to the concept of God.

Closeted Atheists: I believe in God...but it's actually the Universe, Nature, Laws of Physics and I choose to call it God (somewhat similar to deists, could be Buddhists or whatever though, Buddhists may also be any other kind of atheist though i suppose, and also theists as far as I can tell)

Real Agnostics: We can not ever know whether there are Gods, and/or it is completely unimportant to our life.

Deist: There is some sort of personal Godish thing, but it only set off the universe and is not concerned with it and us anymore, or never was

Soft Theists: I believe there is a God, but I can't be hundred percent sure (I'm sure there are some of those, and it would be the other side, and less common one, of the "popular" agnostic coin)

Hard Theists: I know there is a God, for I have Faith and Faith = fact

Personally I fall between Hard Atheist, Soft Atheist or Real Agnostic depending on the time of the day, yeah...I'm a flip flopper

nice... guess im soft atheist

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think there's a couple of different types we can try to distinguish:

[b]Hard Atheist: I There are no Gods/There is no God (I believe there is no people, many of them generally ignorant to the limitations of knowledge, but others aware of it, but still content in claiming it as they would not deny gravity or evolution either and find the margin of skepticism negligible)

Soft Atheists: I don't know for sure, but I do not believe there is/are a God/gods (That's what many people who call themselves Agnostics fall under imo, really just some healthy skepticism)

Unknowing Atheists: I don't believe in a God, but that's cause I believe in something else spiritual or never was exposed to the concept of God.

Closeted Atheists: I believe in God...but it's actually the Universe, Nature, Laws of Physics and I choose to call it God (somewhat similar to deists, could be Buddhists or whatever though, Buddhists may also be any other kind of atheist though i suppose, and also theists as far as I can tell)

Real Agnostics: We can not ever know whether there are Gods, and/or it is completely unimportant to our life.

Deist: There is some sort of personal Godish thing, but it only set off the universe and is not concerned with it and us anymore, or never was

Soft Theists: I believe there is a God, but I can't be hundred percent sure (I'm sure there are some of those, and it would be the other side, and less common one, of the "popular" agnostic coin)

Hard Theists: I know there is a God, for I have Faith and Faith = fact

Personally I fall between Hard Atheist, Soft Atheist or Real Agnostic depending on the time of the day, yeah...I'm a flip flopper [/B]

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think there's a couple of different types we can try to distinguish:

[b]Hard Atheist: I There are no Gods/There is no God (I believe there is no people, many of them generally ignorant to the limitations of knowledge, but others aware of it, but still content in claiming it as they would not deny gravity or evolution either and find the margin of skepticism negligible)

Soft Atheists: I don't know for sure, but I do not believe there is/are a God/gods (That's what many people who call themselves Agnostics fall under imo, really just some healthy skepticism)

Unknowing Atheists: I don't believe in a God, but that's cause I believe in something else spiritual or never was exposed to the concept of God.

Closeted Atheists: I believe in God...but it's actually the Universe, Nature, Laws of Physics and I choose to call it God (somewhat similar to deists, could be Buddhists or whatever though, Buddhists may also be any other kind of atheist though i suppose, and also theists as far as I can tell)

Real Agnostics: We can not ever know whether there are Gods, and/or it is completely unimportant to our life.

Deist: There is some sort of personal Godish thing, but it only set off the universe and is not concerned with it and us anymore, or never was

Soft Theists: I believe there is a God, but I can't be hundred percent sure (I'm sure there are some of those, and it would be the other side, and less common one, of the "popular" agnostic coin)

Hard Theists: I know there is a God, for I have Faith and Faith = fact

Personally I fall between Hard Atheist, Soft Atheist or Real Agnostic depending on the time of the day, yeah...I'm a flip flopper [/B]

I suppose technically I'm a soft Theist, since I know that God cannot be proven 100%... Most things can't.

But I'm a pretty hard soft Theist. I'm pretty sure there is a God.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think we have to be able to distinguish between "hard atheists" who deny that God could exist, and simply those who deny, based on the evidence, that one exists.

Like, use unicorns as the example. They don't exist. We don't need to make these caveats when describing unicorns, because there is no good evidence to suggest they are real, no known evolutionary mechanism that would produce them (I don't just mean horses with horns, I mean magical, mystical animals), and there are few, if any, logical positions that would allow for everything we know about the universe to be true and also for unicorns to exist. Now, it is true, we could just be wrong, but I don't think the acceptance of the fact that one might be mistaken is the same as saying "I'm unsure about the existence of God".

I feel people are just unwilling to make this statement because it is just unpopular to say God doesn't exist, or there is the perception that it is inappropriate to say that no evidence, no possible mechanism and no real coherent logical explanation means God isn't real in the same way people are entirely willing to say it about other scientific concepts. Like, there are entire books written about how String Theory can't be correct because it is unfalsifiable, etc, but when we replace ST with God, all of a sudden we have to show that unfalsifiability some type of deference? as if it makes it more true that we cant test it?

Ok cool, and agreed. I've just encountered people who do substitute "I could be wrong" for "I'm unsure about the existence of God." It's frustrating, and I don't feel I should need to be more strident in my assertions to remain atheist, nor do I consider that position deference to a religious argument.

Good analogy though with the unicorn.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think there's a couple of different types we can try to distinguish:

[b]Hard Atheist: I There are no Gods/There is no God (I believe there is no people, many of them generally ignorant to the limitations of knowledge, but others aware of it, but still content in claiming it as they would not deny gravity or evolution either and find the margin of skepticism negligible)

Soft Atheists: I don't know for sure, but I do not believe there is/are a God/gods (That's what many people who call themselves Agnostics fall under imo, really just some healthy skepticism)

Unknowing Atheists: I don't believe in a God, but that's cause I believe in something else spiritual or never was exposed to the concept of God.

Closeted Atheists: I believe in God...but it's actually the Universe, Nature, Laws of Physics and I choose to call it God (somewhat similar to deists, could be Buddhists or whatever though, Buddhists may also be any other kind of atheist though i suppose, and also theists as far as I can tell)

Real Agnostics: We can not ever know whether there are Gods, and/or it is completely unimportant to our life.

Deist: There is some sort of personal Godish thing, but it only set off the universe and is not concerned with it and us anymore, or never was

Soft Theists: I believe there is a God, but I can't be hundred percent sure (I'm sure there are some of those, and it would be the other side, and less common one, of the "popular" agnostic coin)

Hard Theists: I know there is a God, for I have Faith and Faith = fact

Personally I fall between Hard Atheist, Soft Atheist or Real Agnostic depending on the time of the day, yeah...I'm a flip flopper [/B]

Ah, ok, here's a good lineup. Though like you said, some hard atheists are simply ignorant of the limitations of our knowledge, and make assertions that can't be absolutely defended. Though for some, they can be defended to a reasonable degree of logic that the remaining uncertainty is negligible (to them at least).

It's odd though, because while I'd be required to say "I don't know for sure" as a point of logical rigor, I'd like to call myself a hard atheist (at least for Earthly man-made deities) because I do feel like the margin of error, so to speak, is negligible. So I guess I'd have to be hard atheist on specific deities, and soft atheist for a higher power in a more general sense.

Anyway, that makes some sense to me, thank you.

...

I'd still like to convince others of these usages. By far the most frequent real-life objection to my atheism is something along the lines of "you can't prove a negative" or "you can't know that for sure." It's frustrating. Then they either think I'm agnostic because I don't take such a hard stance, or continue thinking atheism is logically moot from the start if I ignore the objection.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah, ok, here's a good lineup. Though like you said, some hard atheists are simply ignorant of the limitations of our knowledge, and make assertions that can't be absolutely defended. Though for some, they can be defended to a reasonable degree of logic that the remaining uncertainty is negligible (to them at least).

I think this sums up what the main thrust of my argument was. I don't really think there is a logical fallacy in saying God doesn't exist, or rather, there is no more a fallacy in that than there is in saying object orientation is not a reliable feature for perceptual grouping when objects are sufficently small.

It strikes me as exceptionally odd that something could be a fallacy just because it might, in the end, be incorrect, and the position that "hard atheism" is ignorant of some limitation of knowledge, equally applied, means that any statement, ever, that is not entirely ambigious about truth is a fallacy, because it might be wrong (re: we don't know the future).

See, but reasonably informed theists will use that to have you admit that nothing can be known for certain. Once that is established, faith is introduced into the discussion, and it becomes harder to repel faith on logical terms because of the preceding argument, especially when they view faith as something that transcends logic.

Not that it can't be done (it can, and easily imo) it's just a great debating tactic that I usually stumble over. At best, I convince them of nothing. At worst, I'm miring though the philosophical nature of subjectivism while being made to look a fool.

But yeah, saying God doesn't exist in the same way that unicorns don't, or gravity is real, etc. shouldn't be an illogical statement by its very nature. I guess maybe I should just stop fighting myself as a hard atheist to avoid the semantic nonsense on the forums.

The hardest thing to understand about atheism is what is positive about it. Atheism and theism are similar in that they are both ideas about what lies beyond our physical lives. However atheism seems to be an idea that encourages hopelessness. If I'm not mistaken an atheist would believe all these things to be true.

Human life is trivial: Our existence is equal to that of the cockroaches and those same roaches are likely superior to us in longevity. Kill a roach, kill a human, it's the same except for some hurt feelings from the surviving humans. Suicide is good as it may hurt a few feelings, but removes competition for survival.

Right and wrong don't exist: aside from what we define as right and wrong these concepts are meaningless. A child molester that thinks he's right, is , and is just in disagreement with many other humans. No actions are actually either outside of human perception.

Nothing to look forward to: If you are dying then be prepared for infinite darkness as that is all there is after death.

The universe is accidental/not on purpose: Everything you see is a coincidence even if it appears orderly. Life itself is founded on luck and there is no plan for anyone or anything.

Faith is a wasted effort: Believing in anything that isn't physical is a exercise in futility. There is no spirit of love, truth, peace, or unity. Nothing exists that cannot be measured so these things don't exist and of course neither does God's power.

Everything is meaningless: Aside from the meanings that we give to things nothing has a purpose and nothing matters. Nobody is special. The sun will eventually die and our existence will not have mattered. The earth will have been destroyed by the sun and we will have the same infinite darkness as every other living thing that dies.

I don't see what's to be gained from accepting these things to be true.

most people are atheists because they feel it is a better representation of what is true, not because it is some awesome and optimistic world view

Originally posted by The MISTER
Human life is trivial: Our existence is equal to that of the cockroaches and those same roaches are likely superior to us in longevity. Kill a roach, kill a human, it's the same except for some hurt feelings from the surviving humans. Suicide is good as it may hurt a few feelings, but removes competition for survival.

Right and wrong don't exist: aside from what we define as right and wrong these concepts are meaningless. A child molester that thinks he's right, is , and is just in disagreement with many other humans. No actions are actually either outside of human perception.

Nothing to look forward to: If you are dying then be prepared for infinite darkness as that is all there is after death.

The universe is accidental/not on purpose: Everything you see is a coincidence even if it appears orderly. Life itself is founded on luck and there is no plan for anyone or anything.

Faith is a wasted effort: Believing in anything that isn't physical is a exercise in futility. There is no spirit of love, truth, peace, or unity. Nothing exists that cannot be measured so these things don't exist and of course neither does God's power.

Everything is meaningless: Aside from the meanings that we give to things nothing has a purpose and nothing matters. Nobody is special. The sun will eventually die and our existence will not have mattered. The earth will have been destroyed by the sun and we will have the same infinite darkness as every other living thing that dies.

I don't see what's to be gained from accepting these things to be true.

You're describing nihilism not atheism.

may the force be with you

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're describing nihilism not atheism.

And even nihilism doesn't believe in infinite darkness. Lack of awareness =/= Awareness of Nothing (or is it, that's interesting, it's definitely not equal to awareness of darkness)

Originally posted by The MISTER
The hardest thing to understand about atheism is what is positive about it. Atheism and theism are similar in that they are both ideas about what lies beyond our physical lives. However atheism seems to be an idea that encourages hopelessness. If I'm not mistaken an atheist would believe all these things to be true.

Human life is trivial: Our existence is equal to that of the cockroaches and those same roaches are likely superior to us in longevity. Kill a roach, kill a human, it's the same except for some hurt feelings from the surviving humans. Suicide is good as it may hurt a few feelings, but removes competition for survival.

Right and wrong don't exist: aside from what we define as right and wrong these concepts are meaningless. A child molester that thinks he's right, is , and is just in disagreement with many other humans. No actions are actually either outside of human perception.

Nothing to look forward to: If you are dying then be prepared for infinite darkness as that is all there is after death.

The universe is accidental/not on purpose: Everything you see is a coincidence even if it appears orderly. Life itself is founded on luck and there is no plan for anyone or anything.

Faith is a wasted effort: Believing in anything that isn't physical is a exercise in futility. There is no spirit of love, truth, peace, or unity. Nothing exists that cannot be measured so these things don't exist and of course neither does God's power.

Everything is meaningless: Aside from the meanings that we give to things nothing has a purpose and nothing matters. Nobody is special. The sun will eventually die and our existence will not have mattered. The earth will have been destroyed by the sun and we will have the same infinite darkness as every other living thing that dies.

I don't see what's to be gained from accepting these things to be true.

Lol. Much like Sym said, you're not describing atheism at all. You're just describing a negative outlook on life. One wonders how anyone, theistic or otherwise, could have such a dire worldview.

Because sh*t, if atheism really was all that, what the hell would be doing with ourselves besides wasting away in misery? It's almost comically lopsided.

Basically all this tells me is that you drank a bit too hard from the kool-aid at one point about what is often fed to us as stereotypes of atheism. The fact that you can't see meaning in a non-theistic existence doesn't mean that others can't. And people certainly don't fit inside boxes of your mental construction.

Also, like in said, there isn't anything to be "gained" in the way you phrase it. We're not atheist for some potential reward. God just isn't something we believe in. It's like, as an analogy, you believe a comics universe exists, I don't. You think you could fall through a wormhole and become Superman. I don't. What is gained from my worldview? Nothing, yours is cooler. But the fact that I can't be Superman doesn't make me hate life.

...

Anyway, I encounter Mister's outlook a lot. People whose worldviews are framed around religion often can't fathom meaning outside of it. Personally, I'm far happier as an atheist than I was as a Catholic. Granted, part of it may have been the age range I associate with the two (leaving religion coincided not identically, but closely with my general maturation into a balanced adult) but still.

And of course, that isn't to say all aspects of my worldview are ideal. I'd love for there to be a religious-style afterlife (virgins please, followed by reincarnation and/or choirs of angels), I just don't believe in one. But my belief doesn't affect my intrinsic happiness.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Human life is trivial: Our existence is equal to that of the cockroaches and those same roaches are likely superior to us in longevity. Kill a roach, kill a human, it's the same except for some hurt feelings from the surviving humans. Suicide is good as it may hurt a few feelings, but removes competition for survival.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Right and wrong don't exist: aside from what we define as right and wrong these concepts are meaningless. A child molester that thinks he's right, is , and is just in disagreement with many other humans. No actions are actually either outside of human perception.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Nothing to look forward to: If you are dying then be prepared for infinite darkness as that is all there is after death.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The universe is accidental/not on purpose: Everything you see is a coincidence even if it appears orderly. Life itself is founded on luck and there is no plan for anyone or anything.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Faith is a wasted effort: Believing in anything that isn't physical is a exercise in futility. There is no spirit of love, truth, peace, or unity. Nothing exists that cannot be measured so these things don't exist and of course neither does God's power.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Everything is meaningless: Aside from the meanings that we give to things nothing has a purpose and nothing matters. Nobody is special. The sun will eventually die and our existence will not have mattered. The earth will have been destroyed by the sun and we will have the same infinite darkness as every other living thing that dies.

It's cool that you guys are holding on to some positivity in your own personal lives but you're missing the point. You can't mold atheism into whatever you want it to be just to suit your positive outlook. The stereotypical idea of an emo kid who wears all black and says things like "life has no purpose" is what I think of when I imagine someone who is truly atheist.

Digi you stated that I didn't describe atheism at all. That sounds like an opinion stated as a fact. Perhaps your personal atheism is not represented but I'm discussing atheism fundamentals not the many forms it takes per the individual.

In atheism there is no purpose, all is meaningless. Your life may have meaning to you, that's fine. But a scientific reality is that what you find meaningful is fleeting and will perish forever, making it meaningless in the end. There's nothing negative about this reality either, as negativity and positivity are human constructs.

Atheism at it's core is a negative outlook. Some atheists may not have negative outlooks but that is a moot point as a person calling themselves a christian can murder children and say that they are following the teachings of christianity. People contradict themselves all the time but it doesn't change the fundamentals of a belief.

Atheisms fundamental belief is that nothing has purpose outside of what some animal gives it and that animal is doomed to expire and achieve it's place in a purposeless existence.

Bardock has a good point about the infinite darkness probably being more like infinite unawareness. There's a bright side for you.

Originally posted by The MISTER
It's cool that you guys are holding on to some positivity in your own personal lives but you're missing the point. You can't mold atheism into whatever you want it to be just to suit your positive outlook. The stereotypical idea of an emo kid who wears all black and says things like "life has no purpose" is what I think of when I imagine someone who is truly atheist.

Digi you stated that I didn't describe atheism at all. That sounds like an opinion stated as a fact. Perhaps your personal atheism is not represented but I'm discussing atheism fundamentals not the many forms it takes per the individual.

In atheism there is no purpose, all is meaningless. Your life may have meaning to you, that's fine. But a scientific reality is that what you find meaningful is fleeting and will perish forever, making it meaningless in the end. There's nothing negative about this reality either, as negativity and positivity are human constructs.

Atheism at it's core is a negative outlook. Some atheists may not have negative outlooks but that is a moot point as a person calling themselves a christian can murder children and say that they are following the teachings of christianity. People contradict themselves all the time but it doesn't change the fundamentals of a belief.

Atheisms fundamental belief is that nothing has purpose outside of what some animal gives it and that animal is doomed to expire and achieve it's place in a purposeless existence.

Bardock has a good point about the infinite darkness probably being more like infinite unawareness. There's a bright side for you.

That's of course incorrect. Atheism does not go against every spiritualism, just against the concept of God. Just like you created yourself (artifical) meaning by believing in a God, so can everyone else create meaning through other, non-God, means.

I personally don't, I happen to be nihilist in some ways (not the "nothing has purpose" kind, more the, "well there's no ultimate purpose but we can create purpose for ourselves" kind..I guess that's called Atheistic Existentialism...so not nihilist 😐)

Anyways, in conclusion, your view of atheism as a whole is to limited, and only applies to a subset of atheists, and is definitely not the only applicable conclusion from an atheist starting point, it is just the one you'd arrive at if you weren't a theist.

I think the point the Mister is going for is that atheism doesn't ALLOW for there to be purpose or hope. Atheists may try to find some, but they would ultimately be grasping at straws to make themselves feel happier while they are alive.

However, I do know that many Atheists I have watched debate and have read DO hold to objective moral values. To be an atheist you don't have to disregard objective moral values, many, if not most, still hold to them.

That being said, of course none of what the Mister is saying proves atheism is wrong or their is a God. There are plenty of other arguments for that. 😄

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's of course incorrect. Atheism does not go against every spiritualism, just against the concept of God. Just like you created yourself (artifical) meaning by believing in a God, so can everyone else create meaning through other, non-God, means.

I personally don't, I happen to be nihilist in some ways (not the "nothing has purpose" kind, more the, "well there's no ultimate purpose but we can create purpose for ourselves" kind..I guess that's called Atheistic Existentialism...so not nihilist 😐)

Anyways, in conclusion, your view of atheism as a whole is to limited, and only applies to a subset of atheists, and is definitely not the only applicable conclusion from an atheist starting point, it is just the one you'd arrive at if you weren't a theist.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Atheism at it's core is a negative outlook.

Originally posted by Mindship
I'm not an atheist, but I really have to disagree with this. I would say, at its core, atheism is simply a statement of belief given the apparent lack of divine proof. Where any particular atheist goes from there depends on that person.