Atheism Inherently Offends

“I don’t believe God exists and neither should you.”

I respectfully disagree with you on this one. Nothing in the ads say that no one should believe in God. They simply say that there are people that believe in God, and if you are one of these people then you are not alone. If anyone reads anything further into the billboards then it is their problem and not the fault of the people who wrote the sign.

And I certainly don’t believe that others shouldn’t believe in God. The world is big enough for all kinds of points of view. I just don’t want anyone to unnecessarily impose their religious beliefs on others. Especially if they use government resources to promote these beliefs.

“I don’t believe God exists and neither should you.”

That may be your take on it, and that may be how others perceive “atheists” (hence their negative reaction to us), but that’s not how I feel. I don’t believe in gods, but I don’t care if other people do–so long as they don’t use their belief/faith to infringe upon my rights or the rights of others.

I have to agree with IO an Buffy.

I agree with redion – that while religious identities do claim a particular worldview, they don’t inherently claim that all others are invalid – and moreover, that those that DO fall into a separate, more dangerous category. It is the difference between a Christian who believes what they believe and doesn’t bother others, and one that believes that their sole purpose in living is to convert as many people as possible, because any way of living other than evangelical Christianity is a path to hell. Moreover, those who are doomed to hell after death are therefore to be treated differently in life. There ARE factions who believe this way in most religions – sections of the Bible, Torah, and Koran all variously state that unbelievers can be cheated, robbed, even killed, with fewer repercussions because of their beliefs. But modern religion frequently does not follow these injunctions, rather concerns itself with the spiritual life of those who voluntarily follow that faith.

I think atheism functions the same way – it is enough for many to be satisfied with their worldview, their hypothesis, and they don’t treat religious people differently AS HUMAN BEINGS because of their religion. We may be atheist and anti-religion, but there is a difference between that and anti-religious people. Just as Jews may be “anti” Christian theology, in that they don’t subscribe to it, but they aren’t inherently anti-Christian.

In regards to black/white gay/straight female/male, the identity implies a person, the ‘identified.’ With religion, it is possible for people to change their minds, there is a difference between organized religion as an institution and the beliefs and practices of those who affiliate themselves with it.

PHEW! Long winded, sorry.

Being an atheist and stating so is a challenge to faith. Any challenge to faith is a challenge to a person of faith because faith is so weak that any challenge is detrimental to a person that believes. People of faith will not, indeed cannot, subject themselves to any statements contrary to their faith. Most of the faithful will, as is often stated, stick their fingers in their ears and yell LA, LA, LA, instead of daring to hear a statement which might make them think about their beliefs. As WE all know, thought is the worst enema enemy of faith.

By saying that I don’t believe in a god, I’m stating that I find the evidence for such a belief unconvincing and those who find it convincing I consider incorrect.

This is true but it is not the message that the billboard was trying to project. The point of the billboards is to let atheists out there know that there are others who also don’t believe. If people are offended by that message then we should be equally offended by every billboard that pretends to be a message from God and every advertisement for a Christian church. They believe that we are not only wrong but unrighteous people that are going to burn in hell for all of eternity.

While it bothers me that they believe this, I’m not going to flood the phone lines of the advertising company or make death threats to the person that owns the property that it is on. I believe in freedom of religion and speech unlike some of them. They have a right to be offended (even if it is unwarranted) but they don’t have a right to stop us from advertising our message.

I don’t think that’s what the quote was saying. He said that the label “atheist” is not synonymous with “anti-theist” and he is right. I am not anti-Christian and I am an atheist, but people often assume I am. I think that is all he was trying to say.

And homosexuality *definitely* inherently offends some people. If it didn’t, we would have gay marriage by now. If it didn’t, Christians wouldn’t have coined such lovely phrases like “hate the sin, love the sinner” or campaign to make sure that gays receive as few rights as possible. Those in the church who are anti-gay rights have the exact same attitude toward atheists, thinking they are anti-Christian.

Reading some of the comments (and a line in the post I missed originally), I see more what I think you were trying to say; that atheism isn’t part of our identity just because it’s true. But I think I disagree with that, too.

Saying that we can’t have an identity of something just because it’s true when we don’t know for sure it is true is fallacious. It doesn’t matter anyway: it’s true that Whites are White, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t form an identity based on that. Even within academia, those who prefer one hypothesis over another form a professional identity based on that. For example, a Freudian or a behaviorist in the psychological field. Even that can bleed over into a person’s personal life, too, because our perceptions of reality color our view of the world. How we perceive the world is a big part of who we are as individuals. So you can form an identity based on something that is true and something that you believe to be true about the world.

Secondly, atheists DO form identities around their atheism, right or wrong. We have campus groups, community groups, online groups, literature, etc, all that cater to atheists. We wear atheist t-shirts and read atheist books, and put up signs. And what I believe is *part* of who I am. It’s not all that I am, but especially since we are a minority group, identities form as part of that.

Thirdly, I don’t think that is inherently anti-religious. It’s a scientific belief. Deists can still believe that there is a god and still believe in science, and certain religions cater to that belief. UU, Episcopalian, certain sects of Judaism, paganism, etc. So it is not anti-religious OR anti-Christian just to be an atheist. That would be anti-theism. There is a difference.

I sometimes use the term ‘non-believer’ in the presence of people I suspect may be religious. I wonder if this word is less prone to this kind of interpretation.

I’m sorta new to speaking out as an atheist, and have always been one to find common ground rather than differences when I meet people.

Thanks, Richard, for eloquently writing what I was thinking!

I do think that the mere existence of atheists/atheism offends some people – that’s demonstrably true, and we’ve heard plenty of personal stories on the site to prove it. However, I don’t think that my saying, “I’m an atheist” is the equivalent of telling my theist friend, “You’re wrong and I’m right.”

Atheists often (and rightly) point out that we’re taking what we view as a default position. The ball is in the theists’ court – we haven’t seen anything that’s convinced us. Show us what you’ve got. Any given atheist can’t be assumed to have read/seen/heard all the different reasons/proofs/anecdotes/texts that different theists might present for their personal god hypotheses.

Someone who’s had a personal religious experience – like a vision or a dream – might accept that as good evidence but understand why another person wouldn’t be convinced simply by hearing an account of it. They’d have to experience it for themselves and *then* decide if it was good evidence or not.

Anyway, just throwing in my two cents to compliment Richard’s twenty 🙂

“It is a truth-claim about the objective facts of reality – and I am saying I think religious individuals are wrong about those facts. That is anti-religious.”

The sign in question is directed at those who do not identify as “humanists” and not just at those whose atheism is the same as yours.

Frequently, those in the atheist blogosphere speak as if all atheists have come by their atheism via science and reason. Yet there are atheists for whom their lack of a belief in a deity would not fit into something as formal as an hypothesis or truth-claim. Indeed there are those who regard their atheism as a private matter: something that is “right for them” and not necessarily right for everyone else. I may not agree with them but they can all lay equal claim to being “atheist” as you or I may do.

As regards a disagreement over the facts being anti-religious, you’ve set the bar ridiculously low. That’s not anti-religious. My positions are anti-religious: that religious belief has a marked tendency to render its adherents: prideful; fearful; susceptible to manipulation; dangerous; insular; hypocritical; reactionary; illiberal; and stunted emotionally, intellectually, and ethically.

Looking at Silverman’s original comment, it appears that there are differences about what being anti-christian or anti-religious would mean.

I can disagree with the beliefs of various religions, but I can still believe in their right to practice their beliefs (within reason) while they agree to not force me to follow along.

I believe that is what Silverman was getting at.

“Think for your self and let others enjoy the same privilege to do so too”
– Voltaire (I think).

Jesse wrote:

either people, looking at the world, should have confidence in the truth-claim of a god, or they should not. By saying that I don’t believe in a god, I’m stating that I find the evidence for such a belief unconvincing and those who find it convincing I consider incorrect.

I think you’re making a bit of a mistake here Jesse, to do with your use of the word “should” in the above. Yes, there is only one ‘reality’ and someone is wrong and someone is right, but unless a person claims to have knowledge about which position is right, then imo, there can be no suggestion of “shoulds” because we’re talking about beliefs and not unequivocal truth.

As an atheist, I would never suggest that another person “should” come to the same conclusion that I have. I may not understand why another person believes something that I can’t get my head around, I may think their reasons for believing don’t hold water, but because I don’t know what the ‘ultimate reality’ is, the idea of suggesting (either directly or by implication) that the other person “should” believe (or not believe) as I do doesn’t enter my mind.

Sorry if this all seems unduly ‘nitpicky’, but when the subject of belief vs knowledge comes up, it seems almost inevitable that the discussion will get ‘sticky’ with the subtle difference between those two concepts.

Hmmm. A few points. But first, of course, Jesse, I appreciate the risks you take in your positions. Certainly these things are worth debating.

Bear with me, because I think I’m making a reach here, but you seem to be falling into the can-ought gap.

Back when Kant was making his categorical imperatives, there was an assumption that there was a higher authority to appeal to that would grant that the way things should be are the way things are (this is more commonly discussed as divine command theory, I believe). You could make a “truth statement” then, about the universe, because there was something out there that supposedly could validate this truth statement. But now we (at least you and I) don’t believe in a divine commander who could allow for the possibilities of the way we think things are as being necessarily true, so in that way you’re making the same argument the theists are making: that the world is the way it is, and that you can accurately speak to that way of existence.

Sure, you and I can agree that this is the way the world is, but to claim that this is a universal truth, and a threatening truth, at that, is not only dubious, but it also seems counter-productive for having a reasonable dialogue (separate point, I know, but I feel it’s worth repeating).

Perhaps I would be more understanding about your position if you said that you are explicitly in conflict with a specific conception of God, say, the Jesus-God or the Old Testament God, and with the people who believe in that God explicitly.

I also have to take issue with this statement you made in the comments: “Truth is not pluralistic.” According to what? Mathematics? Geometry? Astrophysics? Whether we are talking about quantum physics (I’m thinking of Schrodinger’s cat in particular), multiple frames of reference for the universe (Newtownian gravity for the big stuff, and quantum for the small, isn’t it?), or even good old fashioned logic, truths can and are matters of perspective and choice (although some choices are arguably better than others, especially depending on the context).

Truth alone, as it is expressed in language, is especially pluralistic, since language and cognition are analogical in nature (that’s Douglas Hofstadter’s argument, but I agree with him). So if we are constantly making analogies and metaphors with the way we describe the world around us, then truths will never be so cut and dry as A is A and only A. To be a truth act is, in that sense, to be pluralistic.

Heck, I’m even reminded of a pluralistic truth statement from our Greek metaphysics debate in Origins of Science, buddy: “Yes, but when you said that yesterday, it was funny.” So the world is both static and changing, after all, as we come back again to that single moment.

Ah well, I look forward to your response!

And Richard, yes, very well put! I agree completely.

One more brief point:

Is atheism a completely chosen identity? One could make the argument that it is as chemically-driven+context driven as being religious.

And if it is not only the result of chemical processes (how can you argue for sure that it isn’t, Philoctetes?), then it is free will–or is it even possible to argue for free will? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to argue both for determinism and free will–a pluralistic truth if ever there was one…

Señior Coyote,

Let’s not use the tactics of the creationists, who say that if everything is not completely explained by evolution that it fails as a theory. In turn, if there were a few non-conscious factors in my decision to accept atheism as a world view that does not make my decision any less conscious.

Secondly, I make no claims that my decision to be atheist was any freer or more determined than a believer’s decision.

Thirdly, while a brief romp through determinism v free will arguments might be amusing, it is unlikely that it would ever shed any light on the matter at hand. Unless you choose to be a strict determinist (and how can you argue for sure that this is true?) you might see that there is a difference in probability of choice between your race and your philosophy.

I believe that your contention that the possibility that one element in my decision to choose atheism may have not been under my conscious control inevitably means that it was only the result of chemical processes would not pass Ockham’s test.

Clever, though.

Jesse wrote:

We are still saying that when we evaluated the theistic claims, we consider them likely to be incorrect.

I hate to say it Jesse, but I don’t think the qualifier ‘likely’ helps clarify things much. It still just comes down to whether we’re convinced or not and doesn’t have anything to do with objective reality.

We may think/believe that we’re ‘more likely’ to be right, but it doesn’t change the fact we don’t know. “I think believers are likely to be wrong” is not the same as the more declarative “they’re wrong“. The fact that most atheists are saying the former and some believers are choosing to hear the latter doesn’t make them the same.

I think part of the problem some of us are having with your position is your suggestion that your belief/lack of belief is “a truth-claim about the objective facts of reality” combined with “It’s no longer merely a statement about myself”

Expressions of belief are not ‘truth claims’, they’re expressions of what we think is true. And yes, that is ‘merely a statement about myself’. As long as it’s a belief and not knowledge, the only thing it tells us about is the person holding the belief.

You seem to be describing what some believers choose to interpret (which we don’t have much control over) rather than what we’re actually saying*.

*(if I’m wrong about this, please let me know!)

To the extent that theists are more offended by atheism than atheists are offended by theism, that’s the theists’ fault. (And their problem.) (And vice versa.)

At the risk of hair-splitting, I think it’s absolutely important to define what we mean by “offensive.”
There is no question that some theists “take offense” at atheism, just as some racists “take offense” at interracial marriage and some homophobes “take offense” at gay marriage.
But does that make any of those things offensive?
It seems to me, at least in those instances, “offensiveness” is not intrinsic to the act or the identity, but rather intrinsic to the person taking – or pretending to take – offense.
I realize this takes us in the direction of subjective ethics, where things like cannibalism and rape are arguably not offensive per se. But I’m OK with subjective ethics.
My own ethical outlook is that things that cannot harm other people are inoffensive. I don’t care what other people believe regarding god-belief, but I am offended by the persecution of people with unpopular religious beliefs.
I don’t care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, but I’m offended by rape.
There is a real difference.
By this standard, atheism in not offensive. It cannot cause offense. Others, however, may chose to take offense. The problem is with them, not us, unless we do something genuinely harmful, like burn their churches down.

I hate to get all philosophical, as I’m really not a fan of philosophy, but here I feel I have to. In order to get to the conclusion that others shouldn’t believe in god, we need two premises:
(1) it is not the case that a god or gods exists, and
(2) all people should endeavor to have their beliefs about the world conform to the actual state of the world. In other words, people should believe only true things.

Despite what Richard Wade and a couple of others may think, I think belief in (1) is entailed in atheism, and I suspect that Wade is being a little bit dishonest (perhaps with himself as well as us) in denying it. After all, Wade lives his life in the same way he would if he knew that the claims of christianity were false, despite having heard those claims and the arguments for them. How could he do that if he didn’t believe, on some perhaps unconscious level, that the claims of christianity were in fact false?

Belief in (2) is perhaps not entailed in every definition of atheism, but is essential not only to any meaningful form of atheism, but also to any serious form of religion, to science, to all rational discourse. How can you discuss any truth claim with anyone without accepting (2)?

No one really rejects (2) across the board, but some people do reject (2) in particular domains, often in the domain of religion. I find this view to be more opposed to atheism than evangelical christianity. And this view is what the people talking about the distinction between belief and knowledge are getting at. Since knowledge is justified true belief by definition, and I accept (2), I cannot ever assert both that I believe some proposition p and that I do not know p. That would be a contradiction. I can assert that other people both believe and do not know something, as I do for example with christians, but I can’t assert that I both believe and do not know something. The people telling us that we should distinguish between belief and knowledge in our own case are asking us to reject (2), and to me that would be worse than converting.

I hope the above helps shed some light on this issue. That being said, all this means is that atheists think christians are mistaken in a particular subset of their beliefs, and I don’t think it’s too much to ask in a free society that christians not be offended by that.

AxeGrrl,
you remind me of writing essays. It used to be taught as rule 1 that you never insert yourself into an essay. It should always be in third person voice.
In college though, I had several professors reject that position. Their reason? It’s an essay and therefore contains your opinion and everyone knows it’s your opinion so why go to effort to hide the fact?

In other words, when I say a Christian is wrong, of course I’m giving my opinion and everyone knows it’s my opinion and therefore “you are wrong” is absolutely no different from “I think you are wrong.” The “I think” is implied in everything I say. Now I may or may not have good and convincing reasons for thinking what I do, but sticking the words “I think” in front of a declaratory statement does not soften it at all.

(though it may imply weakness and that I don’t have evidence to back me up)

Now I may or may not have good and convincing reasons for thinking what I do, but sticking the words “I think” in front of a declaratory statement does not soften it at all.

That’s only true if language functioned in a way that was fully rational. It doesn’t. The way language is interpreted not only depends on strict rational interpretation, but also on cultural context and emotional charge. Saying “I think” you are wrong will sound softer than “You are wrong” to most people. The “I think” tells the person you are speaking to that you are actively aware that you are expressing an opinion, wheras not inserting “I think” gives the impression that you are stating undisputed fact.

Certainly in both cases you are expressing what you think, but in practice both statements are not treated equally.

Jesse, this is a great post. If you can’t say there are facts of the matter on the reality of God, then you are one step closer to truth relativism. What could be more real than the nonexistence/existence of God? (And if someone here stands up and says science…)

I agree that there’s a difference b/w saying what your sex, race, or sexual orientation is, on the one hand, and your religious views on the other. But I do not fully agree with the assessment that being an atheist necessarily means that one believes that others should believe as they do. While this reasoning may be true in some cases – I’m an atheist who go to where I am by thorough reasoning, and so I believe that unless new evidence is put forth, others should believe as I do if they’ve done their homework (and I’d prefer they did their homework). However, some atheists are more like apatheists; they would often not fall in the same boat as me. Some atheists might be of the opinion that the world can be interpreted in various ways and not believe that religious viewpoints are misguided (I think they’re misguided, but they may not).

And, to give the contrast, how many of us perceive that by virtue of a person being Christian, Muslim, Mormon or whatever, that they necessarily believe that we should believe as they do? There might be a difference here, as there may be more religionists than non-religious people who are willing to give comparable value to alternative belief systems simply because it’s hard for them to give conclusive evidence that their particular religious beliefs are epistemologically superior to those of other faith groups.

Just my two cents.

MikeTheInfidel wrote:

Our position is also making a truth statement about the evidence we’ve been given – “this evidence is not sufficient to justify belief”. True, this is a subjective perspective of the evidence, but it’s still a truth statement.

I have to disagree, at least with that very specific wording.

‘Subjective perspectives’ are never ‘truth statements’. Personal beliefs are inherently subjective and don’t necessarily reflect objective reality…..they only reflect our opinion/personal assessment about objective reality.

And, for me, ‘this evidence is not sufficient to justify belief’ does NOT reflect my view as an atheist. My position is ‘this evidence is not sufficient to convince me‘. That’s it. That’s all I’m able to comment on, because I don’t know the specific personal reasons the other person has for believing.

The only thing I’m ‘justified’ in expressing is my perspective/opinion on the issue….and that’s all I’m doing when I express my atheism.

Richard Wade wrote:

Frank, if you want to be skeptical about my claim about myself, then go ahead. The only evidence that I can offer you about my innermost thoughts are my own words. If that is not convincing to you, oh well.

Wow.

Isn’t it ironic that a fellow atheist here is doing the same thing that some believers are doing? Namely, ‘reading’ something into an atheist’s words that isn’t necessarily there.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen/heard believers accuse atheists of being disingenuous about what we’re expressing ~ things like: “you’re being dishonest if you’re denying that atheism says…..”

This has become a very intresting thread 🙂

Richard,

No offfense, but where on earth did you get your psychology degree? Cause any competent undergraduate psychology or cognitive science major should be able to tell you that one of the most basic things we have learned from the scientific study of the mind is that people do NOT know a lot of what goes on in their own heads. Most of the things the brain does are unconscious. So to suggest that you are consciously aware of everything that goes on in your mind is either ignorant (unaware of basically any psychology ever) or arrogant (thinking the science somehow doesn’t apply to you).

I find your claim to be at least somewhat dishonest because I don’t see any difference between “finding the evidence for god(s) unconvincing” and “believing that god does not exist.” They mean the same thing. A person can believe that god doesn’t exist (or anything else) without having explicit conscious awareness of that belief at every moment. And yet you explicitly accept the first and reject the second.

I also don’t view belief solely, or even primarily, in terms of what propositions a person verbally affirms or rejects. Beliefs guide behavior, and so I judge a persons beliefs partly by their behavior. And you seem to agree that you live your life exactly as you would if you believed that god did not exist.

Frank wrote:

to suggest that you are consciously aware of everything that goes on in your mind is either ignorant (unaware of basically any psychology ever) or arrogant (thinking the science somehow doesn’t apply to you).

So how should we characterize your claim that you know even MORE than that?

Frank,
Are we sinking to ad hominem now? Thanks for saying “no offense.” That makes your insinuation that I’m incompetent in my profession all okay.

Yes, I understand psychology’s concept of the unconscious, and after counseling more than 10,000 patients very intimately, I also am aware of the very wide range of self awareness that people can have. Some are unfamiliar with a great deal of their minds, and others are familiar with a great deal of their minds. The unconscious is not made with a cookie cutter, and people, as they grow and mature, tend to become more aware and intimate with themselves.

But after getting to know all those people, the very most important thing I learned was that I CANNOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THEIR MINDS. If I think they are missing something about themselves, I might suggest it, but they are the final authority. I’m not going to arrogantly insist that no, no, I know them better than they do. This is the ridiculous argument that you keep insisting on, that your crystal ball trumps what I say about myself. Bullshit. You wouldn’t accept me making statements about your unconscious based entirely on my own fantasies, and claiming that you don’t know yourself but I do.

I find your claim to be at least somewhat dishonest because I don’t see any difference between “finding the evidence for god(s) unconvincing” and “believing that god does not exist.” They mean the same thing. A person can believe that god doesn’t exist (or anything else) without having explicit conscious awareness of that belief at every moment. And yet you explicitly accept the first and reject the second.

Just because you haven’t yet seen the difference doesn’t mean there is no difference. The huge and important difference between having no belief in the existence of X and having a belief against the existence of X has been explained by me here and on many other threads, usually to some unsophisticated theist who comes to this blog trying to tell us all about ourselves instead of asking, or using a dictionary as if it’s the frikking Bible.

A vacuum is not an atmosphere. An empty lunchbox is not full of anti-lunch. If my pocket is not full of dollars, it does not follow that it must be full of pesos. If I’m empty of belief in gods, that does not mean that I am full of belief that there are no gods. Two completely different things. Belief is a thing to do. One does not have to be constantly doing it, one way or the other.

The difference between weak and strong atheism has also been well explained by others countless times. If my efforts have failed with you, I give up. Maybe someone else can try, or refer you to some other source.

I also don’t view belief solely, or even primarily, in terms of what propositions a person verbally affirms or rejects. Beliefs guide behavior, and so I judge a persons beliefs partly by their behavior. And you seem to agree that you live your life exactly as you would if you believed that god did not exist.

I just don’t get this argument about the way I live. Please describe the observable differences in my behavior that you would expect to see if I were to simply have no belief in gods, versus if I were to have an assertive belief that there are no gods.

Since you seem to insist that you know my unconscious better than I do, maybe you can also observe me remotely and tell me how I live. Oh Swami, who sees all and knows all, what do you see both in my mind and in my life that proves that I actually spend time believing in the non-existence of gods? I eagerly await your gift of enlightenment.

No offense.

Richard,

You aren’t unfamiliar with the claims of theists, you aren’t a person who simply hasn’t thought about the question or considered the evidence. The gods that theists believe in are such that if they existed, we would have evidence of it. If they weren’t, we’d call them deists and not theists. By your own admission, the evidence for the existence of god is unconvincing. Therefor, by the rule of inference known to philosophers as modus tollens, god does not exist. Refusing to take this step is like understanding arithmetic yet refusing to either affirm or reject the proposition that 2+2=4, perhaps for fear of offending people who believe that 2+2=5. There is an element of dishonesty in it.

As to how you live your life, I can’t tell you how that would be different depending whether you believe that god does not exist or only find the evidence of gods existence unconvincing, as I don’t think the two are actually different. You are the one who believes that the two are different, and if they are different it’s not unreasonable to expect that the difference might influence your behavior in some way. So the burden is on you, you tell me how it makes a difference.

Philocetes, you say:

“Let’s not use the tactics of the creationists, who say that if everything is not completely explained by evolution that it fails as a theory…Secondly, I make no claims that my decision to be atheist was any freer or more determined than a believer’s decision.”

That’s not what I was doing (and thanks for the ad hominem attack, by the way). I could care less about an argument for free-will or determinism, or for why you have faith in atheism, and other people have faith in religion.

What you took out of context was an address to uncertainty and the existence of pluralistic truths.

You also say: “Unless you choose to be a strict determinist (and how can you argue for sure that this is true?) you might see that there is a difference in probability of choice between your race and your philosophy. I believe that your contention that the possibility that one element in my decision to choose atheism may have not been under my conscious control inevitably means that it was only the result of chemical processes would not pass Ockham’s test.”

I’m not arguing for strict determinism. So there’s that. Instead of saying that it was inevitability only the result of chemical processes, what I was saying, and what I continue to take issue with is the belief that you can speak convincingly and certainly about the world in such a way as to impose your own truth claims on people who believe differently…much the way I get frustrated with religious folks who do the same thing.

Frank,

You’re right, it’s not too much to ask for Christians not to be offended by atheists. It’s also not too much to ask for atheists not to be offended by Christianity.

If you’re going to proselytize to them, they are going to proselytize to you just as much. Personally, I do get annoyed when people proselytize to me, almost no matter what they are saying.

And I mean, let’s be honest here, for a lot of people religion isn’t even about God, it’s about having a religious practice, or community, or tradition. That doesn’t mean those people should believe in God, but they do. So for all of this truth-claiming, what’s really at stake? (Yes, I know I’m ignoring the zealots. They don’t exactly help their cause…)

By the way, Frank,

Is the universe symbolically/formally logical?

Is the universe mathematical?

If you can prove it so, then your claim about religion being wrong like 2+2=5 will have merit.

Frank wrote:

By your own admission, the evidence for the existence of god is unconvincing. Therefor, by the rule of inference known to philosophers as modus tollens, god does not exist.

Being ‘unconvinced’ regarding an assertion does mean one is justified in stating, as fact, that the assertion ‘is not true’.

I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about that.

Frank,

By your own admission, the evidence for the existence of god is unconvincing. Therefor, by the rule of inference known to philosophers as modus tollens, god does not exist. Refusing to take this step is like understanding arithmetic yet refusing to either affirm or reject the proposition that 2+2=4, perhaps for fear of offending people who believe that 2+2=5. There is an element of dishonesty in it.

“By my own admission”. I’m not confessing a crime, I’m describing my thoughts. Someone comes up to me. I don’t come up to him. He makes a claim about the existence of a god, ghost, spook, magic, whatever. I politely ask him for evidence that he might think will be convincing to me. If what he offers does not convince ME, ONLY ME, NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY ELSE OR EVERYBODY ELSE, then I remain unconvinced. I don’t know who these philosophers are whom you say insist that if I find myself unmoved in one direction, I must therefore be moved in the other direction. My reaction to the evidence provided is NOTHING MORE THAN my reaction to the evidence provided. It is not proof that the evidence is universally unconvincing, or that the claim is universally false, or that I must therefore be actively believing the claim’s opposite.

As for your arithmetic example, I’ve got plenty of evidence that 2+2=4 and plenty of evidence that 2+2 does not equal five, and I’ll come right out and argue with someone who claims that it is five.

My position on refraining from belief is not about being “afraid to offend” a believer. It is as I said earlier about keeping a discipline, keeping my mind clean of all sorts of unsupported assumptions.

I’m sorry about the confusion about your mentioning how I live. I thought you were saying that I’d somehow behave differently with the non believing than I would with the believing against. Okay, then if you say that there is no difference between the two ways of thinking and/or no difference in how such different ways of thinking would cause me to behave, then how I live is neither evidence for me sincerely and actually having no belief in gods nor is it evidence of my secretly, unconsciously or dishonestly harboring active, assertive and declarative beliefs that there are no gods. “By your own admission” how I live does not indicate this one way or the other.

This is getting tiresome and apparently futile. I’ve wasted the entire day on this. Please stop calling me a liar about how I think when you can’t prove that, and then suggesting that I have to do the proving that I’m being honest about my thoughts. Please stop trying to attribute secret or unconscious thoughts to me, when you cannot prove that, and then suggesting that I have to do the proving that those aren’t there. Please stop trying to invent meanings to my statements about myself that say I’m talking about somebody else. Go ahead and think differently, but don’t keep up this crap that I think differently from you only because I’m either unaware of myself or dishonest. I’m not trying to get you to change your own views about gods, only get you to correctly understand mine.

Agreement is not important. Only understanding is.

Richard wrote:

Someone comes up to me. I don’t come up to him.

I think you’ve just isolated the issue at the heart of all of this Richard.

No matter what the claim/belief/opinion, when person A ‘puts something out there’, person B who isn’t convinced by it will be seen as actively ‘going against’ them ~ even though (and here’s the important part) person B is merely reacting to person A’s assertion and NOT necessarily making an assertion themselves.

That’s what’s inherently ‘problematic’ about the basic scenario itself….and what’s contributed to the confusion/nitpicking we’ve been doing here I think.

If I was to relate to anybody, it would be Richard.

Critical thinking requires the ability to not make assumptions, to not assume that just because something has not yet been proved that the opposite must be true. Lack of evidence only indicates lack of belief, not lack of truth.

While most of us can categorically rule out that the Bible is true, and other religious texts, it’s not as easy to rule out that some sort of greater being exists. It’s just that there is no evidence, so there is no reason to believe in one.

However this does not automatically mean you should believe the opposite: that none exists, that it is not possible. You could make the assumption, but then you couldn’t claim to be truly critically thinking about the situation unless you are in possession of some sort of evidence to prove your stance.

Absence of belief does not automatically equate to belief of absence.

Honestly, this whole “atheists believe in something, too” is a false dichotomy and thrown at us in religious arguments by believers all the time. We’re quite happy to use the above quote to refute that, which is why I’m surprised some here have forgotten that message.

Think of it this way (not the best analogy, but you’ll get the point): if you were blindfolded and somebody asked you to name the colour of the flower in their hand, what would you say or believe? If they told you it wasn’t red, would you automatically assume that they didn’t have a flower at all? If you put your hand out to touch the flower, but still couldn’t see it, would you assume that a flower that is not red must be transparent? If they told you the flower was blue but you had only ever seen red flowers before that they must be lying and the flower is in fact red?

What if they told you the flower was striated, you’d never seen a striated flower before, but admit the possibility that striated flowers exist? Would you automatically assume it must be striated because they say so? Would you assume that because you’d never seen one, the possibility of striated flowers existing is so low that they can’t possibly be holding one in their hand?

Or would you say “I don’t know”, that you can’t know until you see it for yourself?

Even betting on the colour of the flower would be futile because your brain would probably, if pressed, simply pick the colour of the last flower you saw.

As an atheist, I would never suggest that another person “should” come to the same conclusion that I have. I may not understand why another person believes something that I can’t get my head around, I may think their reasons for believing don’t hold water, but because I don’t know what the ‘ultimate reality’ is, the idea of suggesting (either directly or by implication) that the other person “should” believe (or not believe) as I do doesn’t enter my mind.

My thoughts exactly, so I fall on the R.W. side of the scale, apparently.

After 30 years of fundamentalist religious belief, I’m loathe to declare now that I know there is no god or that others should not believe.

To me, there’s no hard and fast evidence on the question of god’s existence, and plenty against (at least a theistic god), and so I choose to withhold belief.

But there’s enough ambiguity for me not to make that decision for other people. If and when they begin to question their presuppositions about theism, I’m happy to discuss it with them, but I’m not looking to make deconversions.

Been there, done that on the other side of the fence and I won’t waste time on it from this side.

AxeGrrl:

‘Subjective perspectives’ are never ‘truth statements’. Personal beliefs are inherently subjective and don’t necessarily reflect objective reality…..they only reflect our opinion/personal assessment about objective reality.

That’s exactly what I mean by a ‘truth statement’ – a statement we make describing something that we believe to be true. If we didn’t believe it was true, it wouldn’t be our subjective perspective; it would be somebody else’s. Your subjective opinion of the nature of reality is inherently a truth statement of this sort. It isn’t possible to have a belief about reality and simultaneously think that that belief isn’t true, because the instant you say “I don’t believe this is true,” you’ve just altered the truth statement you’re making.

And, for me, ‘this evidence is not sufficient to justify belief’ does NOT reflect my view as an atheist. My position is ‘this evidence is not sufficient to convince me‘. That’s it. That’s all I’m able to comment on, because I don’t know the specific personal reasons the other person has for believing.

That’s an important distinction to make. But if the evidence is not sufficient to convince you, would you say that a person for whom it is sufficient is correct to believe? If so, then the difference is in your standard of evidence, not in the evidence presented. I don’t necessarily see that as an illegitimate disagreement; some people are more credulous than others, or less discerning in their appraisal of the evidence. And you’re absolutely right, we can’t judge the subjective experience of another person, especially with respect to matters of proof or faith. One of those pesky limitations of being stuck in our own brains 🙂

Frank:

The gods that theists believe in are such that if they existed, we would have evidence of it. If they weren’t, we’d call them deists and not theists. By your own admission, the evidence for the existence of god is unconvincing. Therefor, by the rule of inference known to philosophers as modus tollens, god does not exist. Refusing to take this step is like understanding arithmetic yet refusing to either affirm or reject the proposition that 2+2=4, perhaps for fear of offending people who believe that 2+2=5. There is an element of dishonesty in it.

This is quite possibly the largest load of unadulterated nonsense I’ve seen lately.

First of all, you’re placing all theists of all stripes into a category for which you have absolutely no basis – that is, people who believe that a god who exists would provide evidence for itself. This is an unjustifiable basis for an argument. There are plenty of theists – especially evangelical Christians, like those of Ray Comfort’s ilk – who say that existence itself is the evidence. They don’t believe that we should ever expect any more evidence to be provided.

Second, you make the rather astonishing claim that disbelieving people’s claims means you’re saying their claims are false. There are more categories than “true” and “false” – for example, “undetermined”. It is possible to disbelieve a claim because its truth value is undetermined, rather than because it is false.

Your analogy to arithmetic is severely flawed. In this instance, the equation we’re presented is not “2+2=4” vs. “2+2=5” – it’s “2+2=x”. X is undetermined. I am unconvinced that x=5, since, due to the evidence we have at hand, it seems more likely that x=4. It’s not a matter of fearing to offend the x=5 believers. It’s a matter of their claims going against our investigation of the evidence. And if this is dishonest, then algebra is dishonest.

You’re making a gray problem into a black and white one.

Frank wrote:

I was quite explicit about my premise that the existence of the gods theists believe in implies that we should have evidence for their existence. It is unfortunate that Richard and AxeGrrl both chose not to quote that premise.

The point I made about not knowing the other person’s personal reasons for believing was in response to issue of ‘evidence’.

How can I possibly know that if I had had whatever experiences the believing person has had that I wouldn’t believe differently as well? I don’t/can’t know that.

MikeTheInfidel,

As to your first point, the only category I placed all theists into is the one that the word “theist” refers to, which is people who believe in a god who interacts with the universe (in other words, provides evidence of his existence). That’s just what the word “theist” means, I don’t know how else to defend that premise, you can go look in a dictionary if you don’t believe me.

If there is evidence for god, either existence or something else, that’s completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. I wasn’t trying to present a general argument that god doesn’t exist, I was merely trying to show the equivalence of believing that god does not exist and finding the evidence for god unconvincing. Half of that equation, the only half that I imagine anyone ever disagreed with, is showing that finding the evidence for god unconvincing implies believing that god does not exist. So I assumed the antecedent (the evidence for god is unconvincing) and attempted to derive the consequent (god does not exist). This is very standard logic/mathematics, assume A, reason your way to B, and therefor conclude that A implies B.

As to your second point, I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Despite what others may have attributed to me, I never made a general claim that finding the evidence off a proposition unconvincing means believing that proposition is false. I only made the claim for the specific case of theistic gods, and I presented my argument for it. Nothing you say here, so far as I can tell, refutes that argument.

My analogy to arithmetic was only meant to show the element of dishonesty in refusing to acknowledge the obvious logical consequences of ones beliefs, nothing more.

Señior Coyote,

I will accept your word that you did not intend to imply that I was mistaken when I thought I had consciously chosen atheism. I am also happy to know that your reference to the impossibility of proving free will was not an attempt to use creationist tactics to disprove my claim that I had consciously chosen atheism.

I will nod and accept that when you said

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to argue both for determinism and free will–a pluralistic truth if ever there was one…

you really could care less about an argument for free-will or determinism.

Whtph, hfmthp. Ahem. Now that I have spit out all the words you put in my mouth about, “having faith in atheism’ and “impose your own truth claims on people who believe differently”, I can get back to the core of the point that you appear to have missed.

The fundamental difference between saying you are an atheist and saying you are black, white, female, male, gay, or straight is the strong element of conscious choice in the former. This is one of the reasons that the existence of atheism offends so many theists. – we saw the same evidence they did and do not believe.

I’m sorry if you felt that pointing out an error in your logic was an ad hominem attack. My policy is to love the mistaken, but hate the fallacy.

Frank,

I was quite explicit about my premise that the existence of the gods theists believe in implies that we should have evidence for their existence. It is unfortunate that Richard and AxeGrrl both chose not to quote that premise.

The reason why I don’t share your premise is because firstly, it’s based on your characterization of the god that theists claim, a god that according to you should be highly provable if it exists. But that’s your characterization, and not necessarily the theists’ characterization. Secondly, we are entirely dependent on the descriptions of theists to consider the gods they want us to believe in.

I don’t make broad assumptions about somebody’s proposed god. I don’t go by broad brush descriptions of their gods from their magic books, because I have found that individual theists so often only agree with some of those described traits, they disregard other traits, and they also add their own. I haven’t met a theist yet who, when questioned carefully, will render the exact same portrait of their god as that of another theist. So I have to take each of their personal concepts individually. When I have the time and patience, I carefully ask them to describe the god they want me to consider.

The more I ask them for details, the less provable or disprovable their gods become. They keep adding on caveats and excuses for this lack of evidence or that lack of evidence. When I have finally come to understand the details of the particular god they’re proposing so that I can determine if there’s any evidence that will convince me of its existence, there’s nothing left that I would say “should” have evidence if it exists. Quite the opposite has happened. So the lack of evidence for their extremely coy, shy, evasive and deliberately unfindable god does not qualify as proof that it doesn’t exist. Or the silliest, silliest argument of all, that the lack of evidence is somehow proof that it does exist.

If I’m really meticulous about it, and the theist doesn’t get exasperated, these conversations go something like the following. I have actually had this admittedly inane conversation a few times:

Me: “Ah. Nice sitting here, watching the clouds go by.”
Theist: “Hi! Do you believe in God??!”
Me: “Huh? Oh, hello. Uh, what are you asking?”
Theist: “I’m asking if you believe in God.”
Me: “Please define and describe this thing you call ‘God,’ so I can tell you whether or not I believe in it.”
Theist: “Well, God of course! The Lord Almighty!”
Me: “Excuse me, I’ve heard this term before, but every person who has asked me about it has had a different definition and description. So not wanting to make the wrong assumptions, I need you to give me some details of this thing so that I know what you, yourself, personally mean, and then I can hopefully determine if I believe in it, and so answer your question.”

(Here begins a long series of questions and answers which I will spare us all, where the theist usually describes an all knowing, all powerful all good creator of all the universe, yada yada. At this point, Frank, you might think that this is a god that “should be highly provable if it exists,” but that’s where I start asking questions about how this god is perceived.) We now return to the exciting dialogue:

Me: “Why don’t I see this god?”
Theist: “Oh, you can only see him if he wants you to see him.”
Me: Ah. Okay, can I hear him?”
Theist: Oh, you can only hear him if he wants you to hear him.”
Me. Uh huh.
(And so we go through the rest of the five senses, and then the theist may offer accounts of warm, happy feelings, or the beauty of a sunset, or the enormity of the universe, or how I myself feel seeing a baby smile, or hundreds of other subjective, emotional experiences that the theist thinks are wonderful and obvious evidence of his god’s existence, but which I find unconvincing.)

So by this point, this conceptual entity that at first glance might have been immense, profound, undeniably obvious and extremely provable if it exists, has had every possible “proof” covered and excused by a stipulation that basically says he’s only going to reveal himself if he damn well pleases, and he usually doesn’t.

This is what that particular theist has brought to me. I can’t help that. I can only work with what he brings. I’m not going to describe his god for him, the way I think his god ought to be. That’s his job, not mine. How the hell could I know what he’s talking about better than him? I really avoid making assumptions about people’s minds. I just ask them and listen. When he’s finally done, I carefully consider all the vague, amorphous, fuzzy and subjective twaddle he’s offered as evidence and I say,

“Well, given your definition and description of this thing, and given what you’ve offered as evidence for its existence, I am not convinced that it exists. Hey, isn’t it nice sitting here, watching the clouds go by?”

I believe this all started with the god(s) of christians who would be offended by the existence of atheists, and that is certainly an interactionist god.

What are you even talking about? Christians certainly don’t believe that their god is going to step in and smite atheists who offend him. Their entire schtick is about the afterlife. They DON’T expect evidence. You’re kind of intentionally ignoring this point.

Philocetes, you said: “The fundamental difference between saying you are an atheist and saying you are black, white, female, male, gay, or straight is the strong element of conscious choice in the former. This is one of the reasons that the existence of atheism offends so many theists. – we saw the same evidence they did and do not believe.

I’m sorry if you felt that pointing out an error in your logic was an ad hominem attack. My policy is to love the mistaken, but hate the fallacy.”

The condescension is one thing, but that’s fine, we don’t need to have a reasonable debate.

The logic is one thing, although we are still disagreed.

Saying that I am using the tactics of the creationists was the ad hominem attack. Maybe not the most ad hominem, but ad hominem nonetheless, given that your evidence was insufficient to be linked with your claim. So there’s that.

But let’s break it down to what you feel is your most important point– your “strong element of conscious choice in being an atheist.”

Great! You’ve just made a claim without any evidence behind it. But I will allow it. Let’s say that yes, you do believe that you have a strong element of conscious choice. I’ll let you have that statement. You then say that this is what offends the religious, although you provide no evidence beyond your supposition that it just does.

So you think this is what offends the religious, well then it must be what offends the religious! Great logic! You must never be wrong about your claims, ever, and never have to provide supporting evidence to link one claim with another. With logic like that (I’m sorry, not logic, but opinions), how will anyone ever be able to disagree with you?

Very interesting post and comments.

I am a fan of the “lack of being convinced that there is a God” definition of atheism. This seems to be most inclusive. Specific people are free to have stronger beliefs (perhaps most do) but it is important to have an inclusive definition of atheism that can include all of us. If not, we need some additional terms.

I do agree with the weaker part of the statement by Jesse, though, that a conscious belief is different than an “accident of birth” like what race you are of or your sexual preference. But it is clear from the comments that Jesse’s rationale applies more to a subset of atheists rather than the whole population.

Eliza, I think have an important insight. You’re right, it’s not about feeling offended, it’s about feeling threatened. An angry, offended person takes time to come to a boil. A fearful, threatened person reacts instantly. And that’s what we see. Instantaneous urges to shut us up. Afraid people are far more dangerous than angry people.

Regardless, the reaction is their emotion, their creation, their responsibility.

Babies are not atheists because atheism is a positive assertion or belief. You might as well say that a baby’s ignorance of evolution theory means the baby is creationist. Thinking in these kinds of antinomies is dangerous, and to confuse positive belief with ignorance is stupid. In fact, the phrase “positive belief” is redundant because there is no such thing as negative belief.

Likewise, it is a false generalization to claim that all religious are invested in their religiosity only emotionally. I know more atheists which are far more emotional than any of the religious I personally know (I don’t know any evangelicals, maybe that’s why!). And in the public sphere, it’s enough to point to the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism (Dawkins et al) to see exactly what I mean: a rabid, emotionally-charged hatred of religion, and the religious, that saturates every statement they make. To question their atheism is blasphemy deserving of the highest derision and public humiliation possible. The irrationality emanating from such closed minds is either scary, awkward or laughable, behavior worthy of a French absurdist play. I get nauseous just from watching them getting chummy with the audience while taking shots at some sophistic characterization of anything remotely religious. It seems petty and alienated from the real problematic of atheism.

My point is that fanaticism is not limited to religion, and to predicate the value of atheism on the belief that there are no radical atheists because atheism does not permit fanaticism is building a castle on sand. The only science atheists object to is theology (hence the “a” in “a-theism”). It should not be built on the flimsy, self-satisfactory defining principle of the New Atheism which is the hatred of religion. If religion were to vanish, then the parasitic New Atheism would lose its founding dogma and collapse.

If theists are offended by the mere statement “I am an atheist” I think that says more about the one who “takes offense”– he or she must be awfully insecure in their religious belief to be “offended” or whatever.

Atheism says I don’t believe in god, not you don’t believe in god.

Now if we were talking about gnostic atheism, and the claim god doesn’t exist, that might be true, but the sign doesn’t say that.

Saying I’m an atheist is very much just like saying I’m white. Taking offense to that is absolutely ludicrous. Again, atheism doesn’t say your god doesn’t exist, it’s a personal revelation.

.

However, religion, like Christianity, likes to declare god exists, in this certain way, and everyone else is wrong. The actual truth is, that organized religion “offends” everyone else. Because they are making a claim that everyone else is wrong.

In any case on any way you want to argue it, any form of religion that claims that natively offends hundreds of times greater than just the lack of belief in god.