@JoeChick Oh, I've encountered it, to be sure. Most theists have very distorted narratives about what they think we believe and why. Never occurs to them to ask. I'm used to it.

@JoeChick OIC. Well that's less common in my experience -- as well as kind of a fringe thing. Considered atheism is much more common in my experience than considered theism. But there are atheists who haven't given it much thought, or any thought. Usually they are not deconverts, or knowledgeable about theism. And many of those THINK they are. But I haven't bumped into one in awhile.

@mordant atheism CAN be the belief that no gods exist. that is one of its two definitions, the other being that it is the lack of belief that any gods exist (tiny distinction). that still doesn't make it a religion, nor is a definition the same as dogma. but you're talking with one person and you said "so many" in your post. i realize one can be a lot when you're embroiled, but seriously, i don't think most atheists even think about it enough to join this site, or seek out sites like this. there is no atheist dogma. atheists are defined by the definition of the word and may have other stuff in common, or not, but there's no atheist bible telling us what atheists can eat or wear, or marry, or believe about anything else besides the existence or nonexistence of gods! i think PEOPLE can be dogmatic, and atheists are people, but i don't see atheists as PARTICULARLY dogmatic about atheism. sometimes i wish more atheists knew how to spell atheist, though -- have you noticed that a lot cannot? rofl!

g

@genessa Yes the exact definitions of all these labels vary a bit. The distinction between a positive disbelief and no belief either way is actually a big distinction philosophically, but you're right, not everyone thinks it through that much, or feels the need to. Many theists and atheists alike actually hold a pastiche of semantic shortcuts more than an exact position either as to belief or knowledge. And that's fine for most everyday purposes. I try to be a little more precise in debates though.

@mordant i tend not to be involved in such debates. most people i know have no desire to debate in favor of the existence of a god, and i have no need to convert anyone to atheism (not a religion!) anyway! the extent of my interest in what other people believe is defined by how difficult they want to make the lives of others who feel differently.

g

@genessa As a deconvert I am not interested in changing people's beliefs but in helping others go through the same process I went through, if that's what they want. Part of that is sharing the thought process changes i went through and why those changes happened. I'm also aware that there are a lot more lurkers than participants in most discussions and many of those are doubters trying to figure out their cognitive dissonance with their beliefs.

While I consider many aspects of religion to be a net harm, I am not looking to undermine or eradicate the settled faith of people for whom it is presently working, so long as they have the same live and let live attitude towards myself and others who may not fully agree with them.

@mordant that live and let live things seems hard to come by lately.

g

@genessa I completely agree, statements like "I believe there are no gods" are perfectly acceptable semantic shortcuts but somehow when it comes to religious topics people want to hector you about it. Atheists for example are generally characterized as "arrogant" for making such a statement since it implies (supposedly) that they have objectively disproven god. This is a characteristic of people who are obsessed with believing "correctly". I am careful to say I hold no beliefs about god because I can find none that are justified (adequately substantiated). That avoids the trap of circular discussions justifying active unbelief or defending against gaslighting accusations of "arrogance". And it keeps the onus on people who argue for god, to evidence their asserted god, which, of course, they never, ever do.

@mordant i am afraid i am fine with the shortcut. i claim no proof but i really do believe, for all intents and purposes, cut however shortly, that there are no gods. i cannot truthfully say i have no beliefs about god. if some will characterize me as arrogant for that, all i can say is that i've been called worse for less cause! )

g

@JoeChick your response does not seem to relate to what i said. i believe there are no gods based on a lack of evidence for any gods the same way i believe there is no tooth fairy. i am not unsure about the tooth fairy. i can't prove she doesn't exist. i'm STILL not unsure about her. i feel the same way about god. if you don't find that logical, maybe that IS the way logic works and the problem is with your understanding of it and not with my statement. i think it would be not only illogical but dishonest to say that i am unsure about god just because i have no proof of the negative that no such figment exists. and i don't consider that arrogant, either. you disagree with me for reasons you have not made clear, and that's fine. you don't have to clarify. i'm not THAT interested in why you disagree. i'm really not. feel free if it turns you on, but don't bother for my benefit.

g

@JoeChick I think you're making the assumption that not absolutely knowing something doesn't exist implies you can't have reasonable certainty it doesn't exist based on the vanishingly small probability that it exists.

I cannot "know" or "prove" with absolute certainty that elves and fairies don't exist, but I can be quite certain they don't just the same. The way I would express that with precision (say, to someone looking for some way to pick apart my statement, as opposed to casual conversation) would be "I think the existence of elves and fairies to be extremely improbable, to the point where I behave the same as if I were absolutely certain they don't exist or it had been definitively proven that they do not".

@mordant yes exactly -- unless someone was deliberately trying to pick apart your statement, which picking would be in the service neither of logic nor of reason.

g

@genessa True, it would be in the service of cherry picking or engaging in confirmation bias to support and defend a position they've already committed to quite regardless of its basis in logic or reason.

The existence of deities is inherently unfalsifiable. I don't give a fig if someone wants to imagine and live as if they exist, so long as on some level they acknowledge that this is arbitrarily choosing a position that is totally unsubstantiatable and therefore must and cannot be binding on everyone else, or associated with rightness, virtue, Mom, country or apple pie. It is and must be something they choose for themselves, not on behalf of their host society or family members or whatever.

@mordant again, exactly. their right to swing their religion ends at my brain! oh that doesn't work as well as the arm/nose thing, but it sounds kind of good.

g

@JoeChick No to what?

@JoeChick correct, but theists who are not members of a religion tend to be respectful. it's not a rule but a tendency. organized theists, aka religionists, do a lot of swinging and my nose gets bent out of shape!

g

@JoeChick correct. but it's the reverse i see people here apparently not knowing: that not all theists belong to a religion. maybe they don't know not all religions are theistic either, but i mention the aspect i do because it impacts the current topic more.

g

@JoeChick @genessa of course all theists don't belong to an organized / recognized religion and may have an entirely private belief. I tend to regard this as irrelevant -- as a "religion of one" vs a religion of a few or of many -- it's still asserting foundational things without bothering to demonstrate their intersubjective reality and relevance, no matter how many other people (zero to everyone) agrees with you. I agree that there's a tendency of "areligious theists" or "theistic nones" to be more respectful than "religious theists" but I see that as an artifact of their vulnerability as singletons. If they have the backing of a known and established religious body then they don't have as much need to get along with people of differing or no beliefs, as they have all the community / belonging they need from like-minded people, and so can afford to otherize those who don't agree.