Being a non believer but not identifying as an athiest.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

begbysback wrote: »

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

Nope, atheist is simply not believing in the existence of a God or gods. If you're never introduced to the notion that there might be a God or have never suspected it yourself, you're an atheist. Atheist is a default position in the absence of religious instruction. It does not require consideration or research.

jaxxx wrote: »

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.

So you're defining yourself as a nothing, and telling everyone else to live a moral and ethical life as individuals. You are the messiah! All praise the messiah!

jaxxx wrote: »

You know what I am? A nothing. What does that mean?

Think it means you might be Buddhist

smacl wrote: »

Nope, atheist is simply not believing in the existence of a God or gods. If you're never introduced to the notion that there might be a God or have never suspected it yourself, you're an atheist. Atheist is a default position in the absence of religious instruction. It does not require consideration or research.

If you are never introduced to the idea of God or gods, then how can one possibly choose not to believe in it?

so you are saying I am atheist to everything which I have not yet been introduced to?

jaxxx

smacl wrote: »

So you're defining yourself as a nothing, and telling everyone else to live a moral and ethical life as individuals. You are the messiah! All praise the messiah!

I don't tell anyone to live, do or believe anything. I'm not so arrogant that I force my opinions on others, I simply convey it. Living morally and ethically is just a foundation for living a decent life. If people choose to live like that great, if they don't more's the shame. Maybe the world would be in a better shape if we were more ethically and morally aware. My point is people these days are so fixated with defining themselves as this or that, X or Y, that they don't stop to think "what's the point". What difference does it make if you have 'set A' of beliefs or 'set B'? You'll live your life slightly different to someone who doesn't share that, but it shouldn't affect how treat others, treat yourself, the planet, anything. If people weren't so damn concerned with being 'something' and trying to make others into that same line of 'something', instead of just being themselves individually then I think the world would be far better off.

porsche boy

Im.an agnostic spiritualist

Samaris

begbysback wrote: »

If you are never introduced to the idea of God or gods, then how can one possibly choose not to believe in it?

so you are saying I am atheist to everything which I have not yet been introduced to?

Absence of belief through ignorance or lack of acceptance is the same result - atheism, a, or without, and theos, referring to a god. It does not matter if a person is atheistic because no-one has ever presented them with the concept, because they were raised without religion or because they found they didn't believe in the deity/ies of the religion they were raised with.

Having a religious position is an active thing, something that unifies people in an outlook. Having no religious position isn't, and there's really no binding factors otherwise.

Since the word is inherently to do with a deity, you can not believe in anything you like, but balance of probability is that it won't affect whether you're an atheist or not.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I don't claim absolutes. Being certain does not mean absolute either.

Fair enough, and dictionaries would agree with you. I tend to use the word certain without any qualifiers to mean a lack of doubt that something is true. If there is any doubt whatsoever, I'd qualify the word, e.g. reasonably certain, almost entirely certain. To me the qualifiers indicate uncertainty and those who need to use the term absolutely certain to mean without doubt.