Stages of (Dis)belief

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

-Leviticus 20:13

I'm commonly asked why I have this blog, as well as why I bother debating with theists who "will never change their mind." People seem to have the idea that the process of going from theism to atheism is simple and quick; one minute you believe, the next you don't. This is a common misunderstanding. It is entirely true that I have no chance of getting into a debate with a theist and having him leave as an atheist. That is not in any way what I can do or what I think I am able to do. Rather, people tend to fall into certain categories based upon how strongly they feel about their beliefs. If I were to say I have a specific goal when debating theists and agnostics, I would have to say that it is to move them, even just slightly, along this scale. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and over the course of about four years I went through various stages, theism without organized religion, agnosticism, and finally full atheism.

Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Strong Believers

This category of believers generally encompasses those strong believers who feel they are absolutely correct in their beliefs. They tend to believe that the Bible (or other holy book) was written directly or indirectly by God, and base their life around their god. They believe they have proof for their god, and there is almost no chance of this person ever being convinced that they are wrong. Almost everyone who falls into this category also makes the absurd statements that the Universe is 6,000 years old, or that argue that evolution does not occur (it happens, it is a fact, if you still argue the point you are simply being ignorant). This was me until about five years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on either distorted/made up facts or the fallacies of special pleading, false dichotomies (attempting to disprove scientific theories such as evolution or the Big Bang and believing that proves their theory), or variations of the argument from design/uncaused causes.

Average Believers

Most theists fall into this category. They go to church, are familiar with some Bible stories (but most have never read the whole Bible), and some accept the 6,000 year old Universe or argue against evolution. These people believe what they are told by those in the above category as well as priests and other religious figures. This strata of believers often does not ever actually think about the truth behind the claims they accept, they simply dogmatically accept these claims as they were told to by parents and other authority figures. This was me until about four years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorancium, special pleading, and anecdotal evidence.

Unaffiliated with Religion

This category is the group of theists that will say the bible was written by humans, it is not an authority, and they do not believe in any specific religion. They merely have this belief that a god exists, usually a personal god and usually one who has a heaven in store for us. I generally look down upon this group of believers as a great deal of them will acknowledge that they have no evidence or justification for their belief and yet they still believe. I have little respect for people who hold beliefs that they agree are unjustified. If you believe in a Judeo-Christian god and heaven, yet you accept that the Bible and other holy books were written by people and are likely fairy tales, where do you derive your beliefs from? Holding a belief purely and knowingly because it makes you feel better is something that I detest, despite that fact that I fell into this category until about three years ago. This group of theists almost always resorts to an appeal to emotion to justify their beliefs.

Agnostics

Agnostics tend to be one of two types. Some are pretty much atheists who are either scared of the word atheist or who are holding on to the last sliver of belief they have just for the sake of "fitting in." These people can generally be swayed to atheism somewhat easily by simply showing them that the reasons they think they have for belief make no sense. The second type is the group that simply chooses not to think about religion because of the cognitive dissonance it causes when they try to reconcile the nonsense that theism claims with the reality that is present and observably true. Again, these people can usually be persuaded to reject the absurd claims of religion as long as they you can get them to actually think about the subject. Agnostics generally use the first cause argument to justify their retained belief of a god.

Atheists


At this point, the person has fully stopped accepting god claims. They have concluded that there is inadequate evidence to support belief in a god, and will generally no longer accept claims without thinking critically about them first.

As noted above, I don't anticipate converting anyone overnight; it's not an instantaneous process. I hope by encouraging people to actually examine the truth value of their beliefs, I may at least shift some readers along the scale.

ffffound.com

Atheism, Agnosticism, and the Burden of Proof

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says."
-1 Corinthians 14:34

Starting with this post, all posts will be preceded be a Bible, Torah, Book of Mormon, or Quran quote. I will have mostly Bible quotes (including those from books which are also included in the Torah) because I have not yet read through the Quran fully.

Most people think of atheists as people who say "There is no god. I accept the theory of evolution, and I am pro-choice." This is a misguided view of atheism. Most people think of agnosticism as a religion, when it is really more of a school of thought. In this post I hope to clear up some misconceptions and misunderstandings on what atheism and agnosticism are, and what they entail.

First, what is atheism? Atheism is a rejection of claims for the existence of one or more gods. That's it. We, as atheists, do not necessarily claim that there are definitively no gods (I will get more into this later), rather we make the assertion that there is not adequate evidence present for us to believe that there is a god as defined by modern religions. Note that just because someone is atheist, that does not require that they accept evolution, nor does it mandate that they take any particular stance on the issues of abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Atheism is not a religion, and therefore does not carry the obligatory opinions that religions do, rather it is a nonacceptance of the god claims that various religions make. Atheism is, and only is, the lack of a belief in a god.

What is agnosticism? Contrary to the understanding of many, it is not a stance between theism and atheism, in any way. When asked, "Do you believe in a god?" the answer is either 'yes' (which is theism) or 'no' (which is atheism). That is all theism and atheism are; answers to that question. It is a yes or no question, and there are no in betweens. Either you do or don't believe in a god. Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. When asked the question, "Are you entirely certain of your previous answer?" then you may respond yes or no. Responding 'yes' makes you gnostic. This could mean gnostic theist, someone who claims to know there is a god, as religions such as Christianity and Islam demand. This could also mean gnostic atheist, someone who claims to know there is no god. In either case, a claim to knowledge should and must be justified, via either logic, reasoning, evidence, etc. If you responded 'no' then you are agnostic. This could mean an agnostic theist, someone who believes there is a god but is not sure, however they are more inclined to believe there is a god. It could also mean agnostic atheist, which is someone who does not believe a god exists, but they do not claim to know for certain. Everyone, including you, is one of the following:

-gnostic theist
-agnostic theist
-gnostic atheist
-agnostic atheist

Another way to view this is the following. If I ask you the question, "Are you genetically a man?" the answer is either yes or no. If I ask you, "Are you at least six feet tall?" the answer is either yes or no. Everyone is one of the following; there are no other options (we will call people above six feet 'tall'):

-tall man
-short man
-tall woman
-short woman

When in a court trial, you do not at first know whether or not they are innocent or guilty, but you believe one way or the other. Either you believe they are innocent or you believe they are guilty; you are agnostic at this point in the trial with respect to the innocence of the defendant. If evidence for the contrary is presented, it is your obligation to admit you were in the wrong and accept the evidence. Once you have full evidence to know the verdict for sure, then you are gnostic with respect to that verdict.

I am an agnostic atheist, and so is the majority of the atheist community. This point of view entails that I do not believe in a god because there has not yet been sufficient evidence presented to give me a reason to do so. If proper, valid evidence of logic was provided which showed that such a god does exist, then I would obviously accept it. As an agnostic, i do not claim that the existence of a god is impossible. There is an important distinction to be made between the following two statements, my stance being that of the former:

"I do not believe there is a god."

and

"I believe there are no gods."

I am not making a claim. Rather, I am stating that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god does exist, and therefore I do not believe it. Theism makes a claim, a claim that a god exists. Atheism says this claim is not adequately supported. This brings me to the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies upon whatever party is making a positive claim. This party must provide proof that their claim is true, or else it is most sensible to assume it false. A person can claim that he has a pet dragon that does not interact with the world in any way, only he can see the dragon, and it makes cat noises in his ear. He cannot prove that this dragon exists. Now, I do not have to disprove the existence of that dragon in order to reasonably state that that dragon does not exist. I don't have to prove that the dragon doesn't exist because he is the one making the claim. The burden of proof lies on him.

Hopefully this post will clear up some confusion and misconceptions about atheism, agnosticism, and the burden of proof. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Atheism in and of itself does not have any other viewpoints in any other subject matters. Agnosticism versus gnosticism is merely whether or not one is claiming to have knowledge of the truth of their claim. The burden of proof lies on the person making a claim. If someone claims that a god exists, it is their job to prove it. Likewise, if someone makes the claim that no gods exist, they are also making a positive claim, and therefore they would have to provide proof as well.

irreligion.org