Atheist vs. Atheist-What?

Atheist vs. Atheist-What?

There are 58 comments on the Psychology Today story from May 15, 2013, titled Atheist vs. Atheist-What?. In it, Psychology Today reports that:

Most people would probably assume that an atheist is an atheist, period. After all, individuals who don't believe in God are, at least in their unbelief, essentially the same, right? But there's a subtle-yet crucial-difference in degrees of incredulity that can meaningfully distinguish one's person's atheism from another's. So if there's an atheist ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Psychology Today.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#41 May 25, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Laugh! Am I really that bad? I hope I can comment or disagree without people feeling under attack.
:-)
I simply wish to offer the alternative view that the best approach to theology is to treat it for what it is - mythology taken too seriously and too literally. I think arguing over 'agnostic' and 'atheist' unavoidably dignifies religious language. It might also suggest that one should care very much which of those two positions one takes.
no you are not bad and I did not mean to imply that you were. and I was not attacking you - I attack Skeptic, among the atheists, and make that quite clear. I was quibbling, differing, arguing with your notion that it somehow "dignifies religious language" to discuss proper definitions and explanations of agnosticism and atheism. I think it is made necessary to explain these carefully, because otherwise the real enemy will define them and slander us - and also because words have meanings, and can be twisted, and it is offensive in itself - even when not used for slander - to see their meanings so badly warped, even by sometimes relatively well-meaning people.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#42 May 25, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see that this is a tenable position. If someone "believes in" something, doesn't that make them gnostic about it? I can't think of an analogy in my own life, where I would claim to believe something is true, while simultaneously claiming that such knowledge is unattainable.
I cannot understand how you can think that a belief that something is true is the same as a claim that you know that it is true. To believe and to know are quite different things.

With regard to the God question, I do not believe and I do not claim to know. That is not the same is claiming to know there is no God. And a person who calls himself/herself a person of faith, can also not claim to have intellectual knowledge, but to be a believer nonetheless.

Not everything one believes is so separate from what one seems to know. I both believe and know in the casual senses of the words that I am typing on a computer keyboard, but that is immediate experience, of what I see and feel and hear. If I were being scientific, I would raise questions about what I am, what knowledge is, what the matter of a socalled computer keyboard is.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#43 May 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
another day, same ignorant post.
<quoted text>
you refer to something skeptic wrote - and he is very far from being a skeptic in the respectable sense of the word. I would bet that he does the negative judgeits on so many people, and that he insults them, mostly out his own arrogance and ego. Too bad he represents himself as the only correct type of atheist. I certainly repudiate him whenever I am annoyed with his attitudes - even if I sometimes think he is correct in being hostile to a superstitious arrogant fundy. But when he is being hostile to thinking people, trying to discuss things in a considered way - and he just calls folks liars and is generally nasty (and has been obscene in the past)- I think the thoughtful atheists should not allow anyone to think that we agree with him or support him.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#44 May 25, 2013
peace n shaax123 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you but I can't take all the credit. I actually thought that atheist claimed that God doesn't exist and that they can prove it.@NightSerf actually corrected me and I did more research on the topic. That's how I came to this conclusion.
I generally like and respect NightSerf, Bob of QFaith and others. I may slightly quibble with some others - or even them - on minor points. I repudiate Skeptic because he is too dogmatic and too egotistical The Psychology Today article seems critical of his type as well - and the location of the article in a publication of that title seems to indicate to me that there is a psychological issue involved, even in the simplistic sense of Ego, in the views of the knowledge-claiming atheist types.(and of course the profit motive in the case of the book-selling types) I enjoy your contributions to the conversation. Quibbles are even fun if one does not get confused and take them personally, or as major disagreements.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#45 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I cannot understand how you can think that a belief that something is true is the same as a claim that you know that it is true. To believe and to know are quite different things.
With regard to the God question, I do not believe and I do not claim to know. That is not the same is claiming to know there is no God. And a person who calls himself/herself a person of faith, can also not claim to have intellectual knowledge, but to be a believer nonetheless.
Not everything one believes is so separate from what one seems to know. I both believe and know in the casual senses of the words that I am typing on a computer keyboard, but that is immediate experience, of what I see and feel and hear. If I were being scientific, I would raise questions about what I am, what knowledge is, what the matter of a socalled computer keyboard is.
There's no such thing is god. If a person claims that "gods are possible" it is up to them to define what they mean by god and present the evidence to show that the phenomenon is real.

Since the beginning of time itself no religious liar has passed this required criteria.

So we must assume that you are hopeless liars, brainwashed into a mindless cult of dishonest people who can't admit that god isn't real - the symptom of the mental illness of faith.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#46 May 25, 2013
Theists use a lot of words, stories and emotions to hide this simple fact - that they are liars with no proof of god, trying to spread their personal hallucinations amongst gullible idiots who don't question them.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#47 May 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing is god. If a person claims that "gods are possible" it is up to them to define what they mean by god and present the evidence to show that the phenomenon is real.
Since the beginning of time itself no religious liar has passed this required criteria.
So we must assume that you are hopeless liars, brainwashed into a mindless cult of dishonest people who can't admit that god isn't real - the symptom of the mental illness of faith.
you are the slanderer and liar - you are the nastiest socalled atheist I have seen on topix. you repeat things by rote as stupidly as the most orthodox true believer. you are an egomaniac who cannot stand anyone challenging you, yet you think you can lie about others - like calling agnostics and agnostic-atheists brainwashed and liars and dishonest when they disagree with your egomaniac version of knowitall atheism, which you claim for yourself. You are disgusting and atypical of atheists on topix. You are a coward who goes around marking those stupid judgeits on everyone who does not think you are wonderful. You are mentally ill, as much or more than some of the actual believers on topix!

Only the atheists who are so beseiged by endless silly posts from true believers tolerate you, because at least you denounce the silly orthodox doctrines of the fundies. But you denounce people who do not agree with you as liars, and do not merely call them mistaken. and you lump together everyone who does not bow down to you - I do not think you do not believe in a god, I think you want to be treated as if you are god and can dictate to everyone and send thunderbolts of nasty rhetoric against anyone who does not worship you.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#48 May 25, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You might show respect to the people who ask you for proof of god and ask you to stop lying about it.
That was to someone else - someone whose views I probably disagree with. However, of all persons on topix, you are the one who deserves the least respect. You are the liar and slanderer. You are a false accuser. You are an egomaniac. You bring down contempt and discredit upon your type of atheist - even most knowledge-claiming atheists are nicer and more modest and correct than you are. You are the one who is mentally ill, with some form of egomaniac personality disorder.

and you totally slander the word skeptic by using it as your topix name. you are far from being a skeptic. you are a true believer - in your self and your bullying tactics.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#49 May 25, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> you are the slanderer and liar - you are the nastiest socalled atheist I have seen on topix. you repeat things by rote as stupidly as the most orthodox true believer. you are an egomaniac who cannot stand anyone challenging you, yet you think you can lie about others - like calling agnostics and agnostic-atheists brainwashed and liars and dishonest when they disagree with your egomaniac version of knowitall atheism, which you claim for yourself. You are disgusting and atypical of atheists on topix. You are a coward who goes around marking those stupid judgeits on everyone who does not think you are wonderful. You are mentally ill, as much or more than some of the actual believers on topix!
Only the atheists who are so beseiged by endless silly posts from true believers tolerate you, because at least you denounce the silly orthodox doctrines of the fundies. But you denounce people who do not agree with you as liars, and do not merely call them mistaken. and you lump together everyone who does not bow down to you - I do not think you do not believe in a god, I think you want to be treated as if you are god and can dictate to everyone and send thunderbolts of nasty rhetoric against anyone who does not worship you.
Your tirade above is a perfect example of the hostility that theists & agnostics face when confronted with the fact that they have no proof of god or that "god is possible".

It frustrates people like you endlessly, who come in here, with a certain level or arrogance around the religious debate and choose to load on atheists whom you percieve as soft targets.

But of course when confronted of the fact that god isn't real and that liars have no evidence, they react like you have above - attempting to sound "above it all", yet presenting 0 evidence and making no points whatsoever.

Hope your rant made you feel better liar.
Lincoln

United States

#50 May 25, 2013
Known by many as the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic.

The Telegraph reported on Monday that Richard Dawkins -
although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.

In the open dialogue with Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, Dawkins also noted that in his book, The God Delusion, he never made the claim that he is certain that God does not exist.

When moderator, Sir Anthony Kennedy, made a remark insinuating that Dawkins had made such an argument, Dawkins quickly jumped in and corrected him.
"No, I don't. I don't. You were wrong when you said that.

I constructed in the God Delusion a 7-point scale, of which 1 is 'I know God exists' and 7 is 'I know God doesn't exist' and I called myself a 6."

Kennedy then asked, "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?"

Dawkins replied, "I do."

Dawkins then explained that he believes there are gradations of agnosticism. He is of the opinion that there are agnostics who feel that although they cannot know, for sure, whether or not a God exists, they conclude -to their satisfaction - that there is a 50-50 chance there is, or isn't a God. Dawkins emphasized that he is no such agnostic.
Quite certain - although he set forth absolutely no research or statistical evidence to support his claim - Dawkins insists that it is highly improbable that God exists.
"I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, which is why I say I'm a 6.9"
One has to wonder, where does Dawkins derive such a "probability"? If he is so certain, why doesn't he just say he is a 7? What holds him back?

http://www.examiner.com/article/richard-dawki...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#51 May 25, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
Known by many as the world's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins - author of The God Delusion - explained during a public discussion at Oxford University, that he does not think of himself as an atheist, but rather an agnostic.
The Telegraph reported on Monday that Richard Dawkins -
although regularly labeled as one - does not consider himself an atheist.
In the open dialogue with Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, Dawkins also noted that in his book, The God Delusion, he never made the claim that he is certain that God does not exist.
When moderator, Sir Anthony Kennedy, made a remark insinuating that Dawkins had made such an argument, Dawkins quickly jumped in and corrected him.
"No, I don't. I don't. You were wrong when you said that.
I constructed in the God Delusion a 7-point scale, of which 1 is 'I know God exists' and 7 is 'I know God doesn't exist' and I called myself a 6."
Kennedy then asked, "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic then?"
Dawkins replied, "I do."
Dawkins then explained that he believes there are gradations of agnosticism. He is of the opinion that there are agnostics who feel that although they cannot know, for sure, whether or not a God exists, they conclude -to their satisfaction - that there is a 50-50 chance there is, or isn't a God. Dawkins emphasized that he is no such agnostic.
Quite certain - although he set forth absolutely no research or statistical evidence to support his claim - Dawkins insists that it is highly improbable that God exists.
"I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, which is why I say I'm a 6.9"
One has to wonder, where does Dawkins derive such a "probability"? If he is so certain, why doesn't he just say he is a 7? What holds him back?
http://www.examiner.com/article/richard-dawki...
Another failed attempt to attack Dawkins because the failed creationist troll cannot attack atheism itself.

Atheists converted: 0.

Lies told: many.
Lincoln

United States

#52 May 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Another failed attempt.....
reading is not one of his skills.
LOL
Ray

Trenton, NJ

#53 May 27, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Another failed attempt to attack Dawkins because the failed creationist troll cannot attack atheism itself.
Atheists converted: 0.
Lies told: many.
sceps my man, i think its time we have a friendly discussion. lol i have a few arguments that can supply evidence for the existance of God. sould we go down that road? im not full of myself by any means, but i think with your intelect, itll make this little discussion very vigorous to say the least. ill let you decide. ill give you # arguments, one scientific, one moral, and one philosophical.

scientific, id say the existance of God explains the way the universe is from the cosmos to the very molecules of our dna

philosophical, id say that the ability to use reason in relation to the real world is evidence of God

moral, i believe that God provides a foundation for moral realism, and that morality in even its subjective form albeit selfrefuting, further boulsters the idea o there being a God.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#54 May 28, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
<quoted text>
reading is not one of his skills.
LOL
Continuing to lie after presenting no evidence of god. Atheists converted: 0.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#55 May 28, 2013
Ray wrote:
<quoted text>
sceps my man, i think its time we have a friendly discussion. lol i have a few arguments that can supply evidence for the existance of God. sould we go down that road?
Nobody is or has ever stopped you or the millions of cult drones in the past from presenting proof of god...except maybe...

1. the fact that there isn't any and that you're all liars.
2. A lack of intelligence from the brainwashing by your cult.
Ray wrote:
<quoted text>
im not full of myself by any means, but i think with your intelect, itll make this little discussion very vigorous to say the least. ill let you decide. ill give you # arguments, one scientific, one moral, and one philosophical.
YOu will be unable to present any valid evidence of god.

If anything, this exercise will show to everyone how poorly you research and understand arguments.
Ray wrote:
<quoted text>
moral, i believe that God provides a foundation for moral realism, and that morality in even its subjective form albeit selfrefuting, further boulsters the idea o there being a God.
There's no such thing as god. Morals exist without god. Atheists don't need hallucinations to get us to do good things - we just do them anyway, without reward from a sky daddy.

Theists scare us because many say they would be murdering and raping all day long were it not for their delusion...

Since: May 13

Trenton, NJ

#56 May 28, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody is or has ever stopped you or the millions of cult drones in the past from presenting proof of god...except maybe...
1. the fact that there isn't any and that you're all liars.
2. A lack of intelligence from the brainwashing by your cult.
<quoted text>
trully this will be fun. lol lets get to it then shall we?
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
YOu will be unable to present any valid evidence of god.
If anything, this exercise will show to everyone how poorly you research and understand arguments.
<quoted text>
well, we will see about that wont we my friend.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no such thing as god. Morals exist without god. Atheists don't need hallucinations to get us to do good things - we just do them anyway, without reward from a sky daddy.
Theists scare us because many say they would be murdering and raping all day long were it not for their delusion...
ok, so lets get down to business. im going to start with morals and then ill get to the other ones in seperate posts. i believe that god is the foundation of moral objectivity. that doesnt mean people will be raping and pillaging without God. people can be decent to eachother and hold different beliefs. my claim is that we haveno foundation or real standard for morals without God.

its really simple. we all have things that we hate that people do. but there are some things that are so wrong, that no matter who does it, wereever, whenever, its wrong. so given this idea, the only way you can have objective morl views is to have a moral law that is higher than you and i. and the only way you can have a moral law is by having a moral law giver. now, i know the objections youll raise, but ill let you get to them anyways. lol

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#57 May 28, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
I cannot understand how you can think that a belief that something is true is the same as a claim that you know that it is true. To believe and to know are quite different things.
They are different things, but not to the believer. If we believe something is true, then don't we THINK that we have knowledge about it? It's only ACTUALLY "knowledge" if we happen to be correct in our belief.

For example, is there anything in your life that you BELIEVE to be true, yet claim to have no actual knowledge of? When I don't have knowledge of something, then I refrain from forming beliefs about it.
havent forgotten wrote:
With regard to the God question, I do not believe and I do not claim to know. That is not the same is claiming to know there is no God. And a person who calls himself/herself a person of faith, can also not claim to have intellectual knowledge, but to be a believer nonetheless.
Most of the believers I've spoken to are very happy to tell me that they KNOW there is a god, as if they had actual knowledge. They are not at ALL willing to entertain the idea that this is only something which they HOPE or SPECULATE to be true.
havent forgotten wrote:
Not everything one believes is so separate from what one seems to know. I both believe and know in the casual senses of the words that I am typing on a computer keyboard, but that is immediate experience, of what I see and feel and hear. If I were being scientific, I would raise questions about what I am, what knowledge is, what the matter of a socalled computer keyboard is.
But that would complicate discussion to the point where it couldn't function. Functionally, and conversationally, we eventually must agree that what we perceive with our senses accurately reflects the real world, and that we all perceive the world more or less the same. People can't go into every conversation wondering "What is a conversation?". The philosophy would bog down any progress.

Within the context of all of us sharing the same physical world, can you give an example of any concept that a person would claim to "believe" without also claiming to "know"?

I think the only substantial difference is between people who recognize that beliefs are only justified when they are supported by adequate evidence, and people who don't recognize that.

What GOOD is a "belief", if we can also say "I don't KNOW that it's true"? Isn't that the same as saying "I could be totally wrong, don't quote me"? This is no different than rampant speculation. "Beliefs" like this can be based on feelings or gut instincts, neither of which are reliably for discovering facts.

Religion seems to be the only area where this gap between "belief" and "knowledge" is allowed to grow this wide.
sonofnone

Sherman, TX

#58 Oct 25, 2015
Indogitrust wrote:
I place myself in the category of being 99.9% sure there is no god, leaving a small fraction of doubt should credible evidence ever be presented proving the existence of god. I wish I could sit back and live and let live, but the religions of this country and the of the world consistently push their dogma on the rest of us. Unfortunately, until religions cease trying to take over the world, we will need watchdog groups like the ffrf to stem the tide of religious expansion. I enjoyed this article but think the use of ffrf as an example of atheist extremism is inaccurate.
Right, because the FFRF siccing the Satanic Temple on decent school children isn't the slightest bit extreme?
http://ffrf.org/news/blog/item/22883-what-i-l...
Quit preying on strangers' children, liars.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min 15th Dalai Lama 77,038
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 23 min Eagle 12 - 851
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 45 min Regolith Based Li... 32,250
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 6 hr Dogen 4,321
Religion sux ? 8 hr ban all cults 2
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) 18 hr Frindly 291
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Mon John 258,478
More from around the web