Anyone ever become an atheist after believing?

[Hatter The Mad]

No-one is born an atheist. You are born agnostic.

It's a shame that after all this time you're still stubbornly insisting on your narrow interpretation of the world.

If we're going to split hairs, everyone is born 'agnostic atheist'. Agnostics are still atheistic.

It seems that the whole world, except Gilly, has come to accept 'atheism' in the broad definition (that an atheist simply holds no belief/rejects the belief in deities) and not the narrow definition (where an atheist has a definitive position).

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

[ringo747]

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that in philosophy, the view that Gilly holds is the accepted definition of atheism.

 

[JoeF1]

It was God's will.

Genuine laugh from me.

It's a shame that after all this time you're still stubbornly insisting on your narrow interpretation of the world.

If we're going to split hairs, everyone is born 'agnostic atheist'. Agnostics are still atheistic.

It seems that the whole world, except Gilly, has come to accept 'atheism' in the broad definition (that an atheist simply holds no belief/rejects the belief in deities) and not the narrow definition (where an atheist has a definitive position).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Thread still going I see.

I guess it is.

 

[Castiel]

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that in philosophy, the view that Gilly holds is the accepted definition of atheism.

With some notable exceptions like political and atheist author G.H Smith, it is. Philosophers such as Ernest Nagel dispute the definitions being forwarded by such authors as not being 'true' atheism.

Much is dependant on the individual and how they wish to label themselves...Gilly is entirely correct to describe himself as Agnostic and not Atheist. If someone wants to label themselves differently then they are well within their rights to do so also, however labelling others is the issue and it largely depends on the position of the person applying the label.

I am not an atheist because I do not deny or have any position on the existence or non-existence of God, essentially that makes me Agnostic although I also think the question 'does God exist' assumes things we do not yet know, so effectively I am Ignostic.

(Note in Hatters posted definition of Atheism it states a rejection, which is a cognitive definitive...which belies his opinion and in fact supports Gilly)

 

[elmarko]

With some notable exceptions like political and atheist author G.H Smith, it is. Philosophers such as Ernest Nagel dispute the definitions being forwarded by such authors as not being 'true' atheism.

Much is dependant on the individual and how they wish to label themselves...Gilly is entirely correct to describe himself as Agnostic and not Atheist. If someone wants to label themselves differently then they are well within their rights to do so also, however labelling others is the issue and it largely depends on the position of the person applying the label.

I am not an atheist because I do not deny or have any position on the existence or non-existence of God, essentially that makes me Agnostic although I also think the question 'does God exist' assumes things we do not yet know, so effectively I am Ignostic.

(Note in Hatters posted definition of Atheism it states a rejection, which is a cognitive definitive...which belies his opinion and in fact supports Gilly)

You don't have to hold a position to reject another persons assertion as being flawed.

It's a pointless debate as it's simply quibbling semantics, but the bigger problem is when theists feel the need to imply that an absence of faith is also a form of faith (which is a flawed concept) - not saying you are doing this, but it's something people who lack a belief in a deity have to contend with.

The only reason the point is brought up constantly is due to people trying to force a personal & subjective definition onto others.

I hold no views about a god/gods - I don't accept the assertion that "A god exists" due to lack of evidence.

I don't hold a view about it's existence either way - no data exists to make a judgement.

(the above is my atheism)

I also don't believe it's knowable either because what's been proposed by most theists is an entity which exists outside of our known world & therefore not testable in the same way as other theories.

(the above is my agnosticism)

As a result of my default lack of belief in gods, combined with the nature of what's been proposed - I'm an agnostic weak-atheist.

I reject the assertion without making a counter-assertion of my own.

Hatters is only wrong if you reject his definition as flawed, which I'd be pressed to find out exactly where his logic is wrong - simply saying that others label it different doesn't undermine his argument.

All sub-categories need to be taken in account if you want to take into account every scenario, implicit, explicit, weak & strong.

Implicit Atheism - always weak. / does not believe due to no exposure to the concept (baby's, isolated communities etc)

Explicit Atheism - weak (does not believe, but does not state a god does not exist either)

Explicit Atheism - strong. (does not believe & does state that a god does not exist - or holds a belief that a god does not exist)

Almost every single rational person I've spoken to fits into the Explicit Atheism - weak (for atheism) & is also agnostic (as agnostic concerns knowledge not belief).

It's not really that complicated but it amazes me how much people debate these very simple points.

Note : While I agree all terms are stupid for atheism (as creating sub-groups for the rejection of an idea is stupid to begin with) these groups are only created in direct response to logically flawed assertions by the theistic community that rejecting a belief is the same as holding one - which is why you get the absurd level of trying to put babies into either group.

In reality you are believe in a god, or you don't.

One is a position which can have a whole culture & moral code/tradition - the other has no common attributes, belief requires a mind & a certain level of cognitive function - as does a rejection of belief , but no level of cognitive function is required to hold neither.

 

[Castiel]

You don't have to hold a position to reject another persons assertion as being flawed.

It's a pointless debate as it's simply quibbling semantics, but the bigger problem is when theists feel the need to imply that an absence of faith is also a form of faith (which is a flawed concept) - not saying you are doing this, but it's something people who lack a belief in a deity have to contend with.

The only reason the point is brought up constantly is due to people trying to force a personal & subjective definition onto others.

I hold no views about god - I don't accept the phrase "A god exists" due to lack of evidence.

I don't hold a view about it's existence either way.

I also don't believe it's knowable because what's been proposed by most theists is an entity which exists outside of our known world.

As a result of my default lack of belief in gods, combined with the nature of what's been proposed - I'm an agnostic weak-atheist.

I reject the assertion without making a counter-assertion of my own.

Hatters is only wrong if you reject his definition as flawed, which I'd be pressed to find out exactly where his logic is wrong - simply saying that others label it different doesn't undermine his argument.

Hatters definition is flawed because he rejects Gilly's.....not because he holds a different opinion of how he labels himself.

I find that self proclaimed atheists are the ones who seek to create an inclusive definition rather than theists, who as a rule simply profess their own beliefs and rarely tell others they must be theists if they have made no definitive obligation or opinion either way, they tell all and sundry they are wrong not to believe, but that isn't the same thing.

The whole implicit atheism or this idea that simply the absence of belief makes you an atheist is what this is engineered to do.....it adds credence to a particular perspective.

For example, you are by admission a weak atheist, whereby you hold no belief in Gods but do not assert definitively there are none..you simply do not know and do not believe due to lack of acceptable evidence to the contrary...Is this correct?

This is a defined position made by cognitive faculty.

I am agnostic (ignostic if we consider the deeper detail, but agnostic will suffice for this example)...I do not know whether there is a God or not, similar to you..however we differ insofar that I do not have any defined position on whether I believe or disbelieve in a potential God or Godhead, I have yet to formulate my position on it as I am still considering the positions and myriad of definitions of such a being or concept (hense why I lean toward ignosticism or theological noncognitivism). None of this makes me an atheist....

This is also a defined position.

Therefore I dispute Hatters generalisation that agnostics are also always atheists, rather than his assertion that he is whatever he labels himself.

Implicit atheism, which essentially asserts anyone not a defined Theist is an atheist by default is something that most commentators and philosophers will dispute or avoid, mainly because it is far too generalised to hold any meaning and it presupposes a default position toward atheism even though in most cases it is unknown how the individual would define themselves if they had the ability to do so.

Edit: I see by your additions (aside from mixing distinct and separate definitions) that as I do not fit into the explicit atheism definition, I am not among the rational people you have spoken to!

It's not really that complicated but it amazes me how much people debate these very simple points.

The problem isn't with it's complexity, but with its implication and validity. That is why people, including some very eminent philosophers debate these seemingly simple points.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

(Note in Hatters posted definition of Atheism it states a rejection, which is a cognitive definitive...which belies his opinion and in fact supports Gilly)

Do you believe in a deity? No. In which case, you 'reject the belief', therefore the definition holds for you (and also does not support Gilly's).

 

[elmarko]

For example, you are by admission a weak atheist, whereby you hold no belief in Gods but do not assert definitively there are none..you simply do not know and do not believe due to lack of acceptable evidence to the contrary...Is this correct?

Yes, that is correct.

I am agnostic (ignostic if we consider the deeper detail, but agnostic will suffice for this example)...I do not know whether there is a God or not, similar to you..however we differ insofar that I do not have any defined position on whether I believe or disbelieve in a potential God or Godhead, I have yet to formulate my position on it as I am still considering the positions and myriad of definitions of such a being or concept (hense why I lean toward ignosticism or theological noncognitivism). None of this makes me an atheist....

This is also a defined position.

Makes sense to me, by the above you are not an atheist - as you have not rejected the assertion - undecided (in a true sense as opposed to the incorrect use of agnostic as it's often mis-used)

I'm only an atheist to the common definition of "god", for more complex ones I could share a similar view to yours - as what's been prosed by each person who makes an assertion is wildly different.

Therefore I dispute Hatters generalisation that agnostics are also always atheists, rather than his assertion that he is whatever he labels himself.

I agree here, agnostics can be atheists/theists or totally neutral.

Implicit atheism, which essentially asserts anyone not a defined Theist is an atheist by default is something that most commentators and philosophers will dispute or avoid, mainly because it is far too generalised to hold any meaning and it presupposes a default position toward atheism even though in most cases it is unknown how the individual would define themselves if they had the ability to do so.

Edit: I see by your additions (aside from mixing distinct and separate definitions) that as I do not fit into the explicit atheism definition, I am not among the rational people you have spoken to!

Well, based on the people I've spoken to - to be honest the specific view you have isn't that common so wan't included in the breakdown.

But I can see the value in it.

The problem isn't with it's complexity, but with its implication and validity. That is why people, including some very eminent philosophers debate these seemingly simple points.

I agree.

On a site note, do you agree that in debating the premise that being an atheist requires faith is a fallacy? - as you don't to believe anything to reject something.

That's pretty much the main reason why most atheists are drawn into this debate (due to theists using this line to discredit none-theists).

 

[zenf]

For example, you are by admission a weak atheist, whereby you hold no belief in Gods but do not assert definitively there are none..you simply do not know and do not believe due to lack of acceptable evidence to the contrary...Is this correct?

I'm also a weak atheist then but I'm not very fond of the term... "Strong" atheists are fairly foolish if they assert definitively that there are no Gods, imo.

Going by the Collins dictionary definition:

atheism (ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm)

— n
rejection of belief in God or gods

That would suggest that simply lacking the belief in a God or Gods would make one an atheist? I believe that's the common usage of the word, although I can see the sense in these different definitions for deeper philosophical discussions.

 

[semi-pro waster]

On a site note, do you agree that in debating the premise that being an atheist requires faith is a fallacy? - as you don't to believe anything to reject something.

That's pretty much the main reason why most atheists are drawn into this debate (due to theists using this line to discredit none-theists).

If you choose to take a definitive position on a question where the answer is presently (and may be for all time) unknowable then that is a faith based position - the most logical position is to say that you don't know, effectively you are agnostic on the question. There's nothing wrong with holding a position based on faith but a number of people seem to think that it's a criticism to point that out.

You can logically be atheist about any god you've ever heard of if the evidence advanced for them doesn't convince you of their existence. If however you baldly state that there is (and can be) no god whatsoever then you've taken a definitive position on a question that you cannot know with absolute certainty.

 

[elmarko]

If you choose to take a definitive position on a question where the answer is presently (and may be for all time) unknowable then that is a faith based position

I'm not taking a definitive view, simply rejecting the assertion.

You don't have to know the opposite for certain to reject another persons assertion.

the most logical position is to say that you don't know, effectively you are agnostic on the question. There's nothing wrong with holding a position based on faith but a number of people seem to think that it's a criticism to point that out.

I don't know, few atheists claim to know - just that we reject somebody else's assertion due to lack of evidence.

You can logically be atheist about any god you've ever heard of if the evidence advanced for them doesn't convince you of their existence. If however you baldly state that there is (and can be) no god whatsoever then you've taken a definitive position on a question that you cannot know with absolute certainty.

I agree on the last part, but few atheists boldly claim that no gods exist to counter.

If a man came up-to me & said "Big-foot exists" - I'd ask for evidence.

I would reject his assertion of an unproven entity due to lack of evidence if he had none.

Nobody would say, "I would take a faith based position that big-foot doesn't exist" - they would simply reject the others persons assertion due to lack of evidence.

I apply the same standard to religion as I do to spoon benders, mind readers & astrology.

Until the claim maker presents evidence to back up the claim, I will reject it - the greater the claim the more pressing the requirement for evidence.

I don't hold a belief about mind-readers, I simply reject their claims due to the lack of evidence.

We apply a different standard of respect to faith in regards to religion as we do for faith regarding conspiracy theories, tarot card readers & people who claim to be able to speak to the dead.

I propose the following,

What viewpoint would people on here have if a man came up-to them & stated they are able to speak with the dead.

You don't have access to their mind, neither can you know for certain - for it to be true requires the suspension of our known laws of physics.

Do you reject their assertion due to lack of evidence?, do you hold an equally valid 'faith based view' they are wrong? - or do you assume they are mentally ill?.

 

[ringo747]

What exactly do you mean by a faith based view?

 

[Castiel]

On a site note, do you agree that in debating the premise that being an atheist requires faith is a fallacy? - as you don't to believe anything to reject something.

That's pretty much the main reason why most atheists are drawn into this debate (due to theists using this line to discredit none-theists).

As SPW mentions, it depends on the assertions being made, some strong atheists would by definition hold a faith position insofar that they categorically trust that there are no Gods and anyone who holds such a belief is therefore deluded or wrong. There are plenty of that type on this forum....You are not one those.

Another problem we have is that some proclaiming atheism haven't really considered it very deeply, they are making a superficial judgement based on current prejudices and what society tells them is acceptable...they also confuse atheism with anti clericalism. We also have the issue whereby some will say they do not know whether God exists or not, yet will denigrate or dismiss those who profess belief in one, again this is faith by proxy.

An atheist doesn't require faith, but some do express a faith nonetheless.

 

[Castiel]

What viewpoint would people on here have if a man came up-to them & stated they are able to speak with the dead.

You don't have access to their mind, neither can you know for certain - for it to be true requires the suspension of our known laws of physics.

Do you reject their assertion due to lack of evidence?, do you hold an equally valid 'faith based view' they are wrong? - or do you assume they are mentally ill?.

I don't reject anything without first looking at their reasoning and why they believe such, I don't dismiss or advocate them..I reserve judgement until I can objectively verify or dismiss the claims depending upon the evidence provided or can be uncovered. If no evidence is forthcoming or is unable to be verified then it remains inconclusive and I reserve judgement until such time as that changes.

I try not to assume anything.

 

[aln]

If you choose to take a definitive position on a question where the answer is presently (and may be for all time) unknowable then that is a faith based position - the most logical position is to say that you don't know, effectively you are agnostic on the question. There's nothing wrong with holding a position based on faith but a number of people seem to think that it's a criticism to point that out.

You can logically be atheist about any god you've ever heard of if the evidence advanced for them doesn't convince you of their existence. If however you baldly state that there is (and can be) no god whatsoever then you've taken a definitive position on a question that you cannot know with absolute certainty.

I'm agnostic as I believe theres too many unknowns to give a definitive answer but I believe you're being a tad unfair to atheist if you claim their beliefs are faith based.

In the absence of evidence that any god exists the most logical answer is atheism until proven otherwise. This is no more faith based than the faith you have in mavity or the faith you have that dragons do not exist.

Being without doubt is something I find interesting but it's not unreasonable to treat our best guess as fact for the purposes of discussion. As it is we never really know anything for sure, but thats how science is done.

Of course the primary difference between the science based and the faith based believe is that science is always happy to accept it was wrong when proven otherwise.

 

[elmarko]

As SPW mentions, it depends on the assertions being made, some strong atheists would by definition hold a faith position insofar that they categorically trust that there are no Gods and anyone who holds such a belief is therefore deluded or wrong. There are plenty of that type on this forum....You are not one those.

Another problem we have is that some proclaiming atheism haven't really considered it very deeply, they are making a superficial judgement based on current prejudices and what society tells them is acceptable...they also confuse atheism with anti clericalism. We also have the issue whereby some will say they do not know whether God exists or not, yet will denigrate or dismiss those who profess belief in one, again this is faith by proxy.

An atheist doesn't require faith, but some do express a faith nonetheless.

Very well worded,

I do agree that not all atheists have thought about it much at all - pretty much the same as some theists.

Generally most people don't really think about why they believe what they do, be that religion, our criminal justice system or political ideologies.

The main irrational part I was referencing is to hold a strong view with no evidence (be that one way or the other) more-so if you allow these views to influence directly your behaviour or views (as I'd argue the more that a belief asks of you, the more evidence you should demand for it).

 

[ringo747]

The main irrational part I was referencing is to hold a strong view with no evidence (be that one way or the other) more-so if you allow these views to influence directly your behaviour or views (as I'd argue the more that a belief asks of you, the more evidence you should demand for it).

Do you mean it is irrational in general to hold a strong view without evidence?

 

[elmarko]

I don't reject anything without first looking at their reasoning and why they believe such, I don't dismiss or advocate them..I reserve judgement until I can objectively verify or dismiss the claims depending upon the evidence provided or can be uncovered. If no evidence is forthcoming or is unable to be verified then it remains inconclusive and I reserve judgement until such time as that changes.

I try not to assume anything.

I'd argue that rejecting an assertion due of lack of evidence is pretty much the same as the above - as in no part of the rejection does it imply an indefinite aspect, it's always open to change if new evidence is presented (as the above) - while no counter argument is made no final decision is made (just a rejection).

Judgement is still reserved on the matter even for the standard atheists rejection position - you simply remain unconvinced.

It seems to be semantic based, as opposed to a tangible difference (as the end result seems identical as weak atheism).

If real evidence was presented in favour of a deity I'd change my views accordingly, that's what I think part of being open minded is.

Unwavering faith isn't open minded.

 

[elmarko]

Do you mean it is irrational in general to hold a strong view without evidence?

For an extraordinary claim then yes.

Be that special powers, gods, supernatural beings, perpetual motion machines or lizard men.

Even more-so when holding that view influences how you act & changes the way you treat others.

 

[ringo747]

For an extraordinary claim then yes.

Be that special powers, gods, supernatural beings, perpetual motion machines or lizard men.

Even more-so when holding that view influences how you act & changes the way you treat others.

I struggle a bit with that idea to be honest. After all we form rational beliefs every day based on what other people tell us. I'd find it difficult to comment on rationality without knowing how a person came to their conclusion.