Being a non believer but not identifying as an athiest.

Mutant z

There seems to be this notion if you dont believe in a supreme being or don't believe in any religion automatically you have to identify as an athiest, well i refuse to put myself into any category least of all one which includes Richard Dawkins who claims to speak for all self proclaimed athiests. By identifying as an athiest i would automatically be putting myself in a club and i dont want to be a part of anyone's club but my own.

Dawkin's doesnt represent me or my views never has done my opinions are my own and not influenced by membership of a particular organisation, we are all independent individuals with our own opinions what any self proclaimed athiest says is their opinion alone no one elses. I only speak for myself no one else i certainty don't want anybody to claim to speak on my behalf just because i don't believe in a diety they also happen to not believe in, no one represents me but myself.

GLaDOS

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you have to worship Dawkins. I think he's a bit of a dick personally.

Atheism is just a non-belief in a god or gods. Anything else ascribed to it is just posturing.

Mutant z

GLaDOS wrote: »

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you have to worship Dawkins. I think he's a bit of a dick personally.

Atheism is just a non-belief in a god or gods. Anything else ascribed to it is just posturing.

I just find Dawkins bordering on the obsessive for a man who claims to have no time for religion he does little else but talk about religion in fact I've never heard him in any discussion where he hasnt brought up Christianity, some of these Athiests dont realise they are just as fundamental in their beliefs as those they claim to oppose.

looksee

Describing yourself as an atheist is not a political statement, or a declaration that you belong to any sort of club or group, or that you identify with anyone else who calls him/herself an atheist. It is simply saying that you do not have a belief in any god or gods. Saying that also does not mean that you are any more or less independently minded, astute, intelligent etc, those are separate things to prove. Or not.

begbysback

You want to have your own club? Go ahead, start one up - maybe call it the Nonostics?

BrokenArrows

Whats people obsession these days with identifying with things.

Atheist is just a word which means you dont believe in a god.

Thats like saying you dont want to identify a vegetarian because it associates you with some vegetarian who you dont like.

And why do you need to "identify" as anything at all? Belief or disbelief in a god is not something which comes up on a regular basis. If the world offends you so much just say "i dont believe in god".

TPD

Its like me claiming I'm not white because I don't agree with what some white people have done / do. It just describes how many gods you believe in, it doesn't associate you with anyone else who believes in the same number of gods.

Mutant z

TPD wrote: »

Its like me claiming I'm not white because I don't agree with what some white people have done / do. It just describes how many gods you believe in, it doesn't associate you with anyone else who believes in the same number of gods.

Well atheism is often seen as an organisation by other religions and in fairness some athiests do little else but say how much they hate religion, i myself have very little time for religion but i dont let it define my life, there are some atheists who talk about nothing else but religion, i dont want to be part of that.

TPD

Mutant z wrote: »

TPD wrote: »

Its like me claiming I'm not white because I don't agree with what some white people have done / do. It just describes how many gods you believe in, it doesn't associate you with anyone else who believes in the same number of gods.

Well atheism is often seen as an organisation by other religions and in fairness some athiests do little else but say how much they hate religion, i myself have very little time for religion but i dont let it define my life, they are some atheists who talk about nothing else but religion, i dont want to part of that.

So don't take part in that. People assuming you're an asshole because you're an atheist is the same lapse of logic as people assuming I'm an asshole because I'm white.

begbysback

Mutant z wrote: »

Well atheism is often seen as an organisation by other religions and in fairness some athiests do little else but say how much they hate religion, i myself have very little time for religion but i dont let it define my life, there are some atheists who talk about nothing else but religion, i dont want to be part of that.

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

seagull

I think you'll find the majority of atheists consider Dawkins a dick. His claim to speak for all atheists has less basis than the pope claiming to speak for all Christians. In fact, it would probably be further from the truth than the pope claiming to speak for all Buddhists.

Mutant z

begbysback wrote: »

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

Well an athiest is one who claims to not believe in god an agnostic is not sure about it either way so it could well be an agnostic which you could also be describing.

Michael OBrien

Mutant z wrote: »

I only speak for myself no one else i certainty don't want anybody to claim to speak on my behalf just because i don't believe in a diety they also happen to not believe in, no one represents me but myself.

And you are free to identify as whatever you feel comfortable with, despite BEING an atheist, by definition.
What you are is not the same as what you choose to define YOURSELF as.
The RD reference is meaningless as RD does not represent atheists, he is just an atheist who is outspoken and famous. He may represent his organisation, that is it.
If you DID believe in a god (at least one) and did not want to use Theist as a label then you don't have to either, but blaming William Lane Craig or the Pope for that decision is not logical.
A person has more than one label, being terrified of labels misses the fact that labels are tools for communication, not some rigid box that you are stuck in.
I am a human (gasp.. a label), a hetrosexual (gasp...another label), atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, anti-theist, irish national and a bachelor.
Each of these labels are almost guaranteed to be also used by people I disagree with on something. So what?.

Also there seems to be a move to bash RD among some atheists as if this makes you 'better' in some way. RD has helped atheism gain acceptance across the globe, and for that I appreciate his work. I don't have to agree with EVERY action or statement he makes however in the same way that one can like a form of sport or politics or philosophy and not have to agree with every famous person commonly known to hold that similar interest.

One eyed Jack

seagull wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of atheists consider Dawkins a dick. His claim to speak for all atheists has less basis than the pope claiming to speak for all Christians. In fact, it would probably be further from the truth than the pope claiming to speak for all Buddhists.

I'd be fairly certain he has never claimed to speak for all atheists, nor has he ever to my knowledge claimed that he represents anyone but himself and his foundation either (before it merged with CFI at least). In fact he's been rather quiet the last couple of years, due to ill health I suppose, but even atheist activism generally appears to have grinded to an abrupt halt in the absence of public figures like Dawkins (marmite really) and Christopher Hitchens. The likes of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are far too pacifist really to spark much of an interest in a movement that had gained so much momentum in the 90's and 2000's in the West. It's almost as though atheism has kinda gotten lost in the social justice stew IMO with more and more people simply identifying as no religion or non-religious.

looksee

begbysback wrote: »

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

What would you research exactly? All you can do is read other people's views and since they are essentially researching 'nothing' your thoughts are as good as theirs. It doesn't matter how you come to the conclusion, if you do not believe in a god or gods you are atheist.

smacl

begbysback wrote: »

I may be a little ignorant here but my understanding is that an atheist is defined as one who has researched and found there to be no existence/proof of god - not just one who doesnt believe in a god - have you researched?

No research required. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods. How they arrived at that position has no bearing on this.

Mutant z

I take all points and yes of course Dawkins doesnt speak for athiests, but i have rejected all thiests and i simply dont want to be part of another one, others can call themselves what they wish but i refuse to identify as anything other than non religious which is how i describe myself when the issue of faith comes up.

looksee

That's fine, that is your prerogative, so why are you getting your knickers in a knot about being an atheist?

Michael OBrien

Mutant z wrote: »

I take all points and yes of course Dawkins doesnt speak for athiests, but i have rejected all thiests and i simply dont want to be part of another one, others can call themselves what they wish but i refuse to identify as anything other than non religious which is how i describe myself when the issue of faith comes up.

Great. Ray Comfort repeatedly says he is non religious too. So good company there.
As I stated you don't have to USE the label 'atheist' but you are one. If you are male and not married, you are a bachelor, however if you don't like that label and prefer 'non married' you are free to use it instead. You would still be a bachelor however.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Great. Ray Comfort repeatedly says he is non religious too. So good company there.
As I stated you don't have to USE the label 'atheist' but you are one. If you are male and not married, you are a bachelor, however if you don't like that label and prefer 'non married' you are free to use it instead. You would still be a bachelor however.

Any language (in this case english) is more flexible than that, it evolves, so the OP isn't necessarily an atheist, but an atheist by a definition which you use at least. It's languages are the communication tool, but it's common understandings of words which help us communicate our ideas with each other.

smacl

Mutant z wrote: »

I take all points and yes of course Dawkins doesnt speak for athiests, but i have rejected all thiests and i simply dont want to be part of another one, others can call themselves what they wish but i refuse to identify as anything other than non religious which is how i describe myself when the issue of faith comes up.

Rejected all theists or simply choose to disagree with them with regards to the existence of gods? I've no problem with theists for the most part but just don't share their belief in gods. What I do strongly object to is theistic organisations and individual god botherers trying to foist their belief system and attendant morality on my family, most notably through the only state funded education available to most people. In my experience, this actually comes down to a small minority of religious extremists and members of various church hierarchies. Most theist in my experience are very much live and let live and couldn't care less about other people's religion.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any language (in this case english) is more flexible than that, it evolves, so the OP isn't necessarily an atheist, but an atheist by a definition which you use at least. It's languages are the communication tool, but it's common understandings of words which help us communicate our ideas with each other.

Yes and no, the word atheist is a well defined and understood term. You can choose it to mean something else, but this is liable to lead to miscommunication and confusion rather than communication. I think this thread illustrates this quite well, in that the OP has taken a notion of atheist to mean something more than it actually means because as a word it is often misused, sometime quite divisively so.

Fian

Mutant z wrote: »

I just find Dawkins bordering on the obsessive for a man who claims to have no time for religion he does little else but talk about religion in fact I've never heard him in any discussion where he hasnt brought up Christianity, some of these Athiests dont realise they are just as fundamental in their beliefs as those they claim to oppose.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope. Being an atheist means you don't believe there is a god, or worship one. It has never meant you substitute by worshiping Dawkins.

He makes a good living by setting himself up as the opponent of all aspects of religion and adopting contrarian positions. Being an atheist does not mean you have to consider anyone who raises their children with religious beliefs a child abuser.

Christopher Hitchens on the other hand is worth reading for persuasive coherent arguments as to the non-existence of god. He is not going out of his way to offend anyone, his arguments are insightful.

begbysback

looksee wrote: »

What would you research exactly? All you can do is read other people's views and since they are essentially researching 'nothing' your thoughts are as good as theirs. It doesn't matter how you come to the conclusion, if you do not believe in a god or gods you are atheist.

Not sure I would describe reading other people's views as researching nothing, more after researching their views you find "nothing".

Surely everyone who considers themselves an atheist has done some research, whether introspective or other?

If not, then is it common for a man to be atheist one day, and agnostic on another day?

salmocab

Atheists by and large do not ram their beliefs or lack of down peoples throats just like religious people by and large dont push theirs, unfortunately like in so many parts of life there is a minority who think they need to push their views as if other peoples views bother them.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any language (in this case english) is more flexible than that, it evolves, so the OP isn't necessarily an atheist, but an atheist by a definition which you use at least. It's languages are the communication tool, but it's common understandings of words which help us communicate our ideas with each other.

I did say that already. Labels are communication tools that help one person quickly understand an aspect about another person (in this circumstance about their beliefs regarding a god). Labels are flexible but not infinitely so.
Now is the OP an atheist? Well by his own statement he alludes that he in fact is, according to common usage, but does not like to use the label. He never once said why he would not qualify as an atheist, only that he does not wish to be labeled as such.
Now one could quibble about the edges of such stances, as in possible deism, or pantheist or panentheist or whatever, and if that line of argument was brought up we can reconsider that 'atheist' is the closest term that matches his stance on the god issue.
But if his argument is he dislikes the label because he dislikes some atheists, then that is not a reason to dismiss the label that applies to him, only that he can refer to himself as something else if it makes him more comfortable socially.
Also 'non religious' only refers to not holding any religion, which is a separate label and depending on his definitions of religion may refer to anything from not having any belief tied to any religion on earth, or more narrowly, not linking to any established organised religion.
However not being religious does not address having or not having a belief in a god. The OP did say he does not hold such a belief so that goes further than non religious.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Yes and no, the word atheist is a well defined and understood term. You can choose it to mean something else, but this is liable to lead to miscommunication and confusion rather than communication. I think this thread illustrates this quite well, in that the OP has taken a notion of atheist to mean something more than it actually means because as a word it is often misused, sometime quite divisively so.

For what it's worth I've personally actually always agreed that atheism by definition was an absence of belief in a deity or deities, some people have corrected me on that and said it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, but that to me at least always sounded like as though the implication is that a person lacks something, when really there's nothing to lack in the first place!

Why I disagreed with Michael's assertion is because I can think of a good few examples where there are ambiguous terms which are only informed by context and an agreed standard. I was also thinking of an article written in the Huffington Post where the author describes themselves as an 'Atheist Muslim' -

Why I Call Myself an ‘Atheist Muslim’

Michael OBrien

salmocab wrote: »

Atheists by and large do not ram their beliefs or lack of down peoples throats just like religious people by and large dont push theirs, unfortunately like in so many parts of life there is a minority who think they need to push their views as if other peoples views bother them.

Its not like beliefs have consequences do they? ... oh wait they do.
There are plenty of theists that push their beliefs into a secular society, and atheists are condemned by many of the mainstream religions and non belief in a god is viewed by theists politically and socially as immoral and dangerous. This lie has to be challenged or it will continue to corrupt and damage the society an atheist lives in.

Outspoken atheists have every right to oppose religious views and challenge their veracity as anyone else. This idea that 'proper' atheists are supposed to be quite and docile and just 'get on with it' is to not live in the real world. Its to compare the impact of religious beliefs with belief in unicorns.

smacl

begbysback wrote: »

Surely everyone who considers themselves an atheist has done some research, whether introspective or other?

Not necessarily. You could be raised without religious beliefs, so the whole notion of the existence of a God or gods would be so far fetched it wouldn't merit any further investigation. Do you believe in fairies, cockatrices and unicorns? If not, why not? Have you researched the possibility they might exist? People believe all sorts of stuff, very few people have researched all the beliefs they don't hold and reject them on that basis.

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why I disagreed with Michael's assertion is because I can think of a good few examples where there are ambiguous terms which are only informed by context and an agreed standard. I was also thinking of an article written in the Huffington Post where the author describes themselves as an 'Atheist Muslim' -

Why I Call Myself an ‘Atheist Muslim’

Being a muslim atheist or a christian atheist or a jewish atheist is fine provided the context refers to not believing in a god but still holding the cultural practices or heritage as important to ones identity. Celebrating Eid with your family does not stop one being an atheist. I was catholic and still like the art and architecture, but my liking such things has no impact on my lack of belief.
If a vegetarian still likes movies from his childhood that has people eating meat in it, it does not stop him being a vegetarian, or dilude 'vegetarian' as a label to something else.
Being atheist is not an all encompassing label for a person. Its a label for a single aspect for a single claim about something.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For what it's worth I've personally actually always agreed that atheism by definition was an absence of belief in a deity or deities, some people have corrected me on that and said it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, but that to me at least always sounded like as though the implication is that a person lacks something, when really there's nothing to lack in the first place!

Why I disagreed with Michael's assertion is because I can think of a good few examples where there are ambiguous terms which are only informed by context and an agreed standard. I was also thinking of an article written in the Huffington Post where the author describes themselves as an 'Atheist Muslim' -

Why I Call Myself an ‘Atheist Muslim’

Nothing wrong with being an atheist Muslim, which is later described as a “cultural Muslim with no imaginary friend.” Plenty of atheist Christians in this country too without a doubt. What I'd take issue with is an atheist believing in a god or god, either explicitly or to a lesser extent implicitly. There have always been people who have a nominal religion by virtue of the time and place they're born, their parentage etc... who would identify themselves as belonging to that religious group while not actually believing in any of the supernatural aspects.

Michael OBrien

begbysback wrote: »

Not sure I would describe reading other people's views as researching nothing, more after researching their views you find "nothing".

Surely everyone who considers themselves an atheist has done some research, whether introspective or other?

If not, then is it common for a man to be atheist one day, and agnostic on another day?

Agnostic does not address claims made by theists, atheism does.
Agnosticism address the objective existence of a god, which is separate from a belief in such an entity or entities.
One can be atheist about gods (as in not accepting claims about gods) one day and believe in the claims the next day, but they will still be agnostic to some degree. The agnostic stance does not address absolutes, only confidence levels in regard to the existence of a god.
Also one can be certain (high confidence) that one definition of a god does not exist and still be uncertain about another definition.
E.g. Zeus does not exist, or Jesus was not God. While claiming a prime mover MIGHT exist is unknowable.

So being atheist is not claiming certainty that no gods exist, such a definition is a strawman that was aimed to make the position untenable.

begbysback

smacl wrote: »

Not necessarily. You could be raised without religious beliefs, so the whole notion of the existence of a God or gods would be so far fetched it wouldn't merit any further investigation. Do you believe in fairies, cockatrices and unicorns? If not, why not? Have you researched the possibility they might exist? People believe all sorts of stuff, very few people have researched all the beliefs they don't hold and reject them on that basis.

Fairies - no, I have heard of them and after some research have come to believe they do not exist.

Unicorns - no, I have heard of them and after some research have come to believe they do not exist.

Cockatrices - I have never heard of them, and it seems spellchecker has never heard of them either - so it seems we are both agnostic in this case.

My point I guess would be that once the God idea is put to a man then surely he has to come to a conclusion he atheist based on some sort of research, otherwise is he not agnostic?

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Also one can be certain (high confidence) that one definition of a god does not exist and still be uncertain about another definition.

Certainty and high confidence are not the same thing. What we can say is that something is sufficiently improbable that we can safely disregard it at this point in time, as to do otherwise would mean that we would have to regard every other item of similar probability and become swamped.

Michael OBrien

begbysback wrote: »

Fairies - no, I have heard of them and after some research have come to believe they do not exist.

Unicorns - no, I have heard of them and after some research have come to believe they do not exist.

Cockatrices - I have never heard of them, and it seems spellchecker has never heard of them either - so it seems we are both agnostic in this case.

My point I guess would be that once the God idea is put to a man then surely he has to come to a conclusion he atheist based on some sort of research, otherwise is he not agnostic?

You miss the definition of atheist. It is NOT that one believes no gods exist. It simply refers to anyone who has not accepted that a god exists. You can add narrower sub-definitions to cater for different approaches to that stance but the general label is atheist.

Think of it like this. Draw a circle on a piece of paper. In that circle write down theist. OK. Now anyone outside that circle is atheist. That's it.

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

Certainty and high confidence are not the same thing. What we can say is that something is sufficiently improbable that we can safely disregard it at this point in time, as to do otherwise would mean that we would have to regard every other item of similar probability and become swamped.

Please tell me what the difference is between certainty and high confidence. I appreciate that confidence is a spectrum but being highly confidence that something is true is being certain that it is true.

Probabilities are often misused. There is zero probability that a god exists because there is no evidence supporting that claim (defining god as one from the abrahamic faiths). That however does not mean that it is impossible for a god to exist. People often mix probabilities with possibilities, so I want to avoid that.
Something can not be impossible and it would still not be correct to say its possible a god exists either.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Being a muslim atheist or a christian atheist or a jewish atheist is fine provided the context refers to not believing in a god but still holding the cultural practices or heritage as important to ones identity. Celebrating Eid with your family does not stop one being an atheist. I was catholic and still like the art and architecture, but my liking such things has no impact on my lack of belief.
If a vegetarian still likes movies from his childhood that has people eating meat in it, it does not stop him being a vegetarian, or dilude 'vegetarian' as a label to something else.
Being atheist is not an all encompassing label for a person. Its a label for a single aspect for a single claim about something.

I was thinking more along the lines of an example of someone who now identifies as a woman, but who was born a man, as being one example, that's a belief that has consequences too! By using your argument, I could say they're still the sex they were born, they just don't have to use it. It's imposing my standards and my understandings of various concepts on them, which is basically saying to them that I believe I have the authority over them to do so. I could see why a person would get a bit prickly about their being undermined and humiliated like that.

I agree with you that the belief that atheists are viewed with suspicion does atheists no favours at least (not sure about the rest of society, their belief that atheists are shifty seems to work for them), but I don't believe you're ever likely to counter that belief by adopting the same craw thumpy tactics of our forefathers, so to speak. I tend to take the Kenny Everett approach to activism - allow people to see for themselves that you're really no different to them. That's why I believe that people for the most part actually do get along with each other just fine, but they are suspicious of, and averse to anyone whom they perceive as holding what they consider to be extreme views and will tend to view them as immoral, etc. I don't believe that solely applies to atheism, theism, liberal, conservative, <insert whatever label you like here>, etc.

smacl

begbysback wrote: »

Cockatrices - I have never heard of them, and it seems spellchecker has never heard of them either - so it seems we are both agnostic in this case.

Never heard of cockatrices? Tsk!! Either way, they're not gods, any more than fairies or unicorns, and don't really play a role in theism.



Do you honestly believe you have taken the time to research whether or not everything you do or don't believe in is on balance of probability true or false? I don't believe that for a moment, which is of course just me taking a punt or taking on an article of faith if you prefer. We all do this all the time out of necessity for dealing with the amount of information we're constantly fed.

begbysback

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Agnostic does not address claims made by theists, atheism does.
.

Can one actually be atheist if they do not address claims made by theists?

looksee

begbysback wrote: »

Fairies - no, I have heard of them and after some research have come to believe they do not exist.

Unicorns - no, I have heard of them and after some research have come to believe they do not exist.

Cockatrices - I have never heard of them, and it seems spellchecker has never heard of them either - so it seems we are both agnostic in this case.

My point I guess would be that once the God idea is put to a man then surely he has to come to a conclusion he atheist based on some sort of research, otherwise is he not agnostic?

Could you explain what research you did to come to the conclusion that fairies and unicorns do not exist?

Michael OBrien

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was thinking more along the lines of an example of someone who now identifies as a woman, but who was born a man, as being one example, that's a belief that has consequences too! By using your argument, I could say they're still the sex they were born, they just don't have to use it. It's imposing my standards and my understandings of various concepts on them, which is basically saying to them that I believe I have the authority over them to do so. I could see why a person would get a bit prickly about their being undermined and humiliated like that.

I freely admit I am not very well versed in the trans movement but I think, from trans like Blaire White, that a trans is a transition of gender not sex. A man is still the same sex when he transitions to female but his gender has changed and he now is to be socially identified as female. His dna has not changed so his sex is the same.

regardless, this is not a good example. There are labels that refer to objective reality and then there are social labels. Different flexibilities occur here.
Atheism is not a complex label, it just identifies someone as NOT a theist.
A person can hold a complex mix of beliefs about things related to gods or religion that might be affected by their loss of previous belief, but they are not all dependent on that previous belief. So enjoying christian songs is not necessarily ruined if you just like the melody, rather than the message or if the message is not tied to the god, but just general niceties like "love everyone".

Again no one is FORCING the OP to use the label, they however CAN still apply it if he qualifies for the common usage of it. The OP cannot FORCE everyone else to change the common usage because it in inconvenient to him either.

This is why the Trans movement separates sex from gender, to make this point. One label (sex) addresses biology, the other (gender) affects how a person feels they should express it. Trans don't feel that their sex matches their identity (gender) and seeks to change it or transition.

Now I am sure my attempt to address Trans is clumsy but I have not studied it indepth but have listened to some Trans explain it.

Michael OBrien

begbysback wrote: »

Can one actually be atheist if they do not address claims made by theists?

I mean that theists claim a god exists and have a pathway of knowledge about that entity. An atheist does not accept that claim.
The ACTUAL existence of something godlike is separate as it is independant of claims about it.
Frankly agnostics, by their own definitions MUST be atheist, as they often define it as "we cannot know either way if a god exists". Since they say "we cannot KNOW" then they naturally reject the claims by theists as theists claim to know something about gods (namely their existence for a start).

smacl

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Please tell me what the difference is between certainty and high confidence. I appreciate that confidence is a spectrum and but being highly confidence that something is true is being certain that it is true.

High confidence is not absolute confidence. It is the difference between being asymptotic to a position and being at that position, which can be all the world of a difference as a certain very tired frog might tell you.

Probabilities are often misused. There is zero probability that a god exists because there is no evidence supporting that claim (defining god as one from the abrahamic faiths). That however does not mean that it is impossible for a god to exist. People often mix probabilities with possibilities, so I want to avoid that.
Something can not be impossible and it would still not be correct to say its possible a god exists either.

There is zero evidence that god exists, in the absence of any observations suggesting that god does or doesn't exist I'm not sure this equates to zero probability so much as a probability that has yet to be measured. The position I take is that there are an infinite number of fantastic unprovable yet directly contradictory beliefs, of the type 'I am the one true God'. Given they're contradictory, any one could be true, and in the absence of any evidence they are all as likely to be true as each other. So the likelihood of any one of the infinite number being true is infinitesimal. Thus I'm highly confident that the Christian God, or any other God I could name, doesn't exist.

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

High confidence is not absolute confidence.

I don't claim absolutes. Being certain does not mean absolute either. By the fact that I know my knowledge is imperfect and my senses are less than flawless, and my memory spotty, I could never reach absolute certainty. However I still use confident and certainty fairly if the confidence is high.
I don't care for percentages but for example if I was 90% confident in a stance I would be certain about it, always allowing that more information could lower that again.
I am confident that I am writing this post but I am sure you agree that philosophically I cannot ever be 100% confident as I could be dreaming it.

One eyed Jack

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I freely admit I am not very well versed in the trans movement but I think, from trans like Blaire White, that a trans is a transition of gender not sex. A man is still the same sex when he transitions to female but his gender has changed and he now is to be socially identified as female. His dna has not changed so his sex is the same.

regardless, this is not a good example. There are labels that refer to objective reality and then there are social labels. Different flexibilities occur here.
Atheism is not a complex label, it just identifies someone as NOT a theist.
A person can hold a complex mix of beliefs about things related to gods or religion that might be affected by their loss of previous belief, but they are not all dependent on that previous belief. So enjoying christian songs is not necessarily ruined if you just like the melody, rather than the message or if the message is not tied to the god, but just general niceties like "love everyone".

Again no one is FORCING the OP to use the label, they however CAN still apply it if he qualifies for the common usage of it. The OP cannot FORCE everyone else to change the common usage because it in inconvenient to him either.

This is why the Trans movement separates sex from gender, to make this point. One label (sex) addresses biology, the other (gender) affects how a person feels they should express it. Trans don't feel that their sex matches their identity (gender) and seeks to change it or transition.

Now I am sure my attempt to address Trans is clumsy but I have not studied it indepth but have listened to some Trans explain it.

Ahh I don't think your explanations were clumsy at all really. To be perfectly honest I was reluctant to use the concept as an example in my first reply as it's just as contentious as religion (as an aside, I'm a fan of Blair White myself! ).

I agree with you that the OP isn't being forced to use the label 'atheist', so I wasn't certain where they were coming from either tbh, but I would be of the opinion that while they can't force everyone else to change the common usage of the term any more than an atheist can force society to trust them, I believe that they can certainly influence people at least to use terms that are agreeable to them, by doing so in a positive way, and that way everyone's gay... erm, happy!

begbysback

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I mean that theists claim a god exists and have a pathway of knowledge about that entity. An atheist does not accept that claim.
The ACTUAL existence of something godlike is separate as it is independant of claims about it.
Frankly agnostics, by their own definitions MUST be atheist, as they often define it as "we cannot know either way if a god exists". Since they say "we cannot KNOW" then they naturally reject the claims by theists as theists claim to know something about gods (namely their existence for a start).

You didn't answer my question - please do, I intentionally kept it simple

begbysback

looksee wrote: »

Could you explain what research you did to come to the conclusion that fairies and unicorns do not exist?

Absolutely - Fairies are put to me as small beings with wings, cute and friendly as they may be, it seems logically impossible for beings to have wings, this coupled with the fact I have never met one in person, and my sister impersonating the tooth fairy, that didnt help the credibility - I have come to the conclusion that Fairies do not exist.

Less eventful road to unicorns, but similar - now it seems you havent answered my question.

looksee

begbysback wrote: »

Absolutely - Fairies are put to me as small beings with wings, cute and friendly as they may be, it seems logically impossible for beings to have wings, this coupled with the fact I have never met one in person, and my sister impersonating the tooth fairy, that didnt help the credibility - I have come to the conclusion that Fairies do not exist.

Less eventful road to unicorns, but similar - now it seems you havent answered my question.

Ahh, well if that is research sufficient to prove to your satisfaction that fairies don't exist, then pretty much the same arguments - with slight tweaks to descriptions - can be considered research to show that god(s) don't exist. I was expecting something a little more rigorous.

What was the question again?

TheChizler

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I mean that theists claim a god exists and have a pathway of knowledge about that entity. An atheist does not accept that claim.
The ACTUAL existence of something godlike is separate as it is independant of claims about it.
Frankly agnostics, by their own definitions MUST be atheist, as they often define it as "we cannot know either way if a god exists". Since they say "we cannot KNOW" then they naturally reject the claims by theists as theists claim to know something about gods (namely their existence for a start).

I strongly disagree. I believe I won't win the lotto tonight but I can't know that for sure. If atheist meant you don't believe you'll win the lotto, and agnostic meant you don't claim to know with 100% certainty what's the outcome will be either way, then by that definition I'm an agnostic atheist.

Similarly a gambling addict might believe they'll win, but might admit when pushed that they can't know for sure. They'd be an agnostic theist by definition.

The religion definitions aren't too different to that analogy. Anyone who believes there is a God but will admit it might not exist would be an agnostic theist. There have been many on this forum over the years.

begbysback

looksee wrote: »

Ahh, well if that is research sufficient to prove to your satisfaction that fairies don't exist, then pretty much the same arguments - with slight tweaks to descriptions - can be considered research to show that god(s) don't exist. I was expecting something a little more rigorous.

What was the question again?

"My point I guess would be that once the God idea is put to a man then surely he has to come to a conclusion he atheist based on some sort of research, otherwise is he not agnostic"?

So we agree - some sort of research is required before one can consider themselves an atheist?

jaxxx

You know what I am? A nothing. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. I'm not religious. I'm not atheist. I'm nothing. People are so obsessed these days with trying to define themselves to set variables... Don't. Be you. Be your own variable. Live your life how you see fit, be what you want to be, believe what you want to believe in, or don't. There's only two things that really matter in life: ethics and morality. Once you have a firm handle on them, then nothing else really matters.