If you don't Believe in God, what do you believe?

[AtheistMessiah]

I'll take a shot at this... (listed on main site)

Atheism by definition means the lack of belief in a God, so sometimes the question: "If you don't believe in God, what do you believe in?" is asked. A quick answer to this is that you don't need to believe in something else to replace a belief in a God, but this doesn't really get at what the question is asking.

For a Theist (someone who believes in a god), their God is very important in their lives. They often dedicate time and define their goals in life to the service of this god, or merely live how they think this god wishes them to live. For a Theist, not having a God means that, for them, there is suddenly this large gap in their lives that is now empty. The question asked makes sense since this is a very large gap to fill (of Godlike proportions).

However, for people who don't assume that a God exists, they fill this 'gap' surprisingly easily (surprising to the Theist). They find their own purpose in life and set their own goals and rules of conduct, usually with the help of society (family, friends, social rules and norms). Finding such goals is more difficult perhaps for an Atheist, since they have almost unlimited freedom of choice.

Which provides one way to answer this overlying question, that the belief in a God is replaced with the freedom of choice. Theists have the benefit of living for a 'great purpose', but atheists enjoy the freedom to live their lives for themselves and can find support from their own individuality and in being masters of their own lives in ways that theists cannot.

Another way to answer is to show that this 'gap' isn't much of a deal for most Atheists. Consider the analogy of a young child promised the largest lollipop ever (and to this child, lollipops are the best thing in the world). That child works very hard, and accomplishes much so that he may have this lollipop. To this child, since so much of his/her life is devoted to this lollipop, it becomes natural to question how others can work hard when they don't expect to get a lollipop no matter how hard they work. What do they believe in, if not the lollipop? Maybe because they want to please their parents, maybe because they want to be strong themselves and accomplish much, maybe they like working hard. These answers apply to atheists as well.

So, in conclusion, the initial fast answer is fairly accurate, but being explained more thouroughly has, I hope, helped in its understanding.

For those seeking a more literal answer, there are not that many formal belief systems that don't involve a God, and those that do are usally undogmatic. (In part due to the freedom of choice aspect mentioned above.) However, the theist may benefit from understanding the humanist philosophy as a natural belief system without a god. Also, Buddhism has more of a religious structure, and is more supernaturalistic than humanism, but still has no God belief.

(This argument may also help in understanding how and why atheists can be good.)

[nonny]

You know the qustion is easily answered I don't believe in God would be the answer they said it themself.

[Supremor]

They often dedicate time and define their goals in life to the service of this god, or merely live how they think this god wishes them to live.

I play basketball and learn german. I love having more time!

They find their own purpose in life and set their own goals and rules of conduct, usually with the help of society (family, friends, social rules and norms). Finding such goals is more difficult perhaps for an Atheist, since they have almost unlimited freedom of choice.

Good point, but I don't see how saying your life is for the service of God, narrows down the options anymore. If you wish to service god, then you wish to do morally right things in your life. Likewise if you are a moral atheist, you try to do moral things.

AtheistMessiah, are you perhaps refering to the laws found in religous texts(e.g. leviticus), if so, then I would argue that so many of Leviticus is not followed by the Christian churches now(e.g. sacrificing bulls, selling your neighbours as slaves etc), that it provides a positive jungle of conflicting pieces of advice on how to live one's life.

So, in conclusion, the initial fast answer is fairly accurate, but being explained more thouroughly has, I hope, helped in its understanding.

Again, very good point and thankyou for your opinion. The majority of it I agree with, although there are further reasons for my atheistness.

[AuntieSocial]

Well said, AthiestMessiah.

I am asked this question frequently (I interact with theists, in a debate setting, on almost a daily basis).

One of the core problems with the question is that it presupposes that there is nothing without God. The average theist finds it inconceivable that a person who does not believe in a God can had a personal ethical code or any purpose in their lives. It is a natural tendency (of everyone, not just theists) to project ones own values on another.

Faced with this preconception, it is understandable that the theist would think we have no beliefs. I would say that I have no unfounded beliefs. What I mean by that is if something is not evident, I do not believe. If something is suspect, I will view that something with skepticism until I can determine (to my own satisfaction) whether it is believable or not. Generally, I do believe in objects, events and circumstances that are quantifiable, testable, observable, etc. What I don't have, however, is faith.

This lack of faith usually results in a comment about me being shallow (if I don't have faith in anything, I obviously don't have trust in friends, family and my own abilities). I do trust people, however, I am skeptical of anyone who has not displayed characteristics that I find trustworthy. Again, I do not accept anything as a given unless I have been able to observe these things myself.

Any notions I may have about science, ethics, politics, etc, are not a factor in my being an atheist. As an atheist, I do not believe in a deity. That is all that atheism states. Many of us share similar political or ethical positions, but these values and beliefs have nothing to do with our having in god-belief.

To me, it is paramount that we, as a community, stress that anything we may believe in is not a function of our being atheists. Too many people generalize about us. Some have gone as far as to attribute philosophies or ideologies to atheists in general based solely on what they know of one (or a few) atheists. We are all individuals with varying backgrounds, educations, cultural influences. Each of these things factors into who we are.

I do agree with much (if not all) of your reply, AtheistMessiah, and thank you for your efforts to answer this very common (and, in my opinion, misguided) question.

[Jewel]

I believe in "dog."

I actually am in total adoration of my Yorkie, Jewel, (took my internet handle from her if that tells you anything) & if there's any worship going on at my house, it's in worship of my Jewel. She snuggles w/ me, we play w/ squeaky toys, she's a great walking companion, & she's just plain adorable. Pretty, sparkly brown eyes (I'm a sucker for brown eyes!) & she loves her treats!

How's THAT for an answer???

Jewel

[pieisgood]

Ohhh, I'm never fogiving you, Jewel

I WANT A DOG!!!!

[Anarchat]

AuntieSocial said:

Well said, AthiestMessiah.

I am asked this question frequently (I interact with theists, in a debate setting, on almost a daily basis).

One of the core problems with the question is that it presupposes that there is nothing without God. The average theist finds it inconceivable that a person who does not believe in a God can had a personal ethical code or any purpose in their lives. It is a natural tendency (of everyone, not just theists) to project ones own values on another.

I don't get that from the question. For me it stems from something that Dostoevsky once said: "The secret of man's being is not only to live, but to have something to live for. " The theists' question doesn't suppose that without God there is nothing to live for, but that everyone seeks a Great Cause to which they can devote their life. I don't think that anyone would argue that people need to have some purpose in their life. The theists' Great Cause, their purpose, is to carry out the will of their God. I would suppose that the theist approaches the atheist's lack of belief with some degree of incredulousness. But it has been my experience that the question has been motivated out of curiosity and not out of feelings of moral or ethical superiority(and I also have experience debating with theists - I've lived my entire life in the deep south).

AuntieSocial said:

Any notions I may have about science, ethics, politics, etc, are not a factor in my being an atheist. As an atheist, I do not believe in a deity. That is all that atheism states.

This is a cop out and I can't really see how you can say that. My atheism did not come into being in a vacuum. It was my views and experience with science, my evolving secular ethic, and my politics that led me away from religion. Maybe I'm just an oddity. Though I would like to know what did lead you away from God. You say you're atheist and all that atheism means is that you don't believe in a deity. So be it. But the pertinent question is what led you not to believe in a diety?

[AuntieSocial]

Anarchat said:

I don't get that from the question. For me it stems from something that Dostoevsky once said: "The secret of man's being is not only to live, but to have something to live for. " The theists' question doesn't suppose that without God there is nothing to live for, but that everyone seeks a Great Cause to which they can devote their life. I don't think that anyone would argue that people need to have some purpose in their life. The theists' Great Cause, their purpose, is to carry out the will of their God. I would suppose that the theist approaches the atheist's lack of belief with some degree of incredulousness. But it has been my experience that the question has been motivated out of curiosity and not out of feelings of moral or ethical superiority(and I also have experience debating with theists - I've lived my entire life in the deep south).

I will have to think on this one a bit before I answer you. I can see your point, though it isn't what I have experienced through my encounters with theists. It could be that I just don't give the vast majority of them credit for having any philosophical depth ...

This is a cop out and I can't really see how you can say that. My atheism did not come into being in a vacuum. It was my views and experience with science, my evolving secular ethic, and my politics that led me away from religion. Maybe I'm just an oddity. Though I would like to know what did lead you away from God. You say you're atheist and all that atheism means is that you don't believe in a deity. So be it. But the pertinent question is what led you not to believe in a diety?

I don't think it's a cop out at all. The only thing that we, as atheists, have in common is our nonbelief in a deity. How we each got to that position doesn't factor into the fact that we are atheists.

You reached the conclusion through a process that involved a knowledge of science. I reached my position because I was skeptical of the religious teachings and found that there was little logic to support a belief in the deities that were defined in the holy texts. Someone else (although this situation is most likely rare) has never been exposed to the concept of a deity at all. Are we any less an atheist than you because we didn't come to the realization through a knowledge of science and a particular political avenue?

What I was saying was that every atheist could have a different philosophy, political affiliation, raison d'etre from the atheist standing beside them. But each of them are atheists because, and only because, they don't believe in a deity. That nonbelief could be explicit (they state there is no god) or implicit (they don't see enough evidence to support the belief), but they still don't believe.

There are no doctrines or tenants associated with being an atheist. Yes, a lot of us are secularists. A lot of us are humanists. A very large number of us believe that evolution is a fact and can be observed even today. None of those things are necessary to being an atheist.

I think that it inappropriate to assign additional qualities to the word 'atheist'. There are already enough bad conotations that the theists have assigned to the word. Why would we want to restrict the definition? The word means, simply, no belief in a deity. Everything else is something that defines who we are, as individuals.

[Anarchat]

AuntieSocial said:

The only thing that we, as atheists, have in common is our nonbelief in a deity. How we each got to that position doesn't factor into the fact that we are atheists.

I agree with the first sentence. I disagree with the second sentence. I would agree that there are perhaps a small number of individuals who are born atheists. People who were not indoctrinated from a young age. I do, however, find it extremely unlikely that there are any atheists that are so because they have never come in contact with the concept of a diety. Maybe not impossible, but unlikely. This is of course speculation, and not even what it is I want to discuss. To get to the core of the matter, I will state that I do think that each person's atheism is a direct result of his "position" (I'm not sure what is meant by position, but I'm assuming it's refering to that person's world view constructed by his various convictions: moral, ethical, scientific, political, philosophical, grammatical, etc.). It may come as some surprise, but there's even an implicit notion in what you've said so far, AuntieSocial. You say that you found no logical reason to believe in a diety? But isn't that a value judgement? Isn't what you're really saying is that you value logic more than the irrational belief in a diety? That in itself is a philosophical stance of sorts. Part of your "position" I would think.

All I meant to say originally is that the law of causality applies even to one's decision to become an atheist. That there is some reason even if it is only the abstraction of pure logic. But the value of that pure logic plays a role in the person's world view. It's part of their "position". My only problem with what you said about this is that it appears as if you (and by your implications every other atheist) simply awoke someday and decided to be an atheist, but that their experiences and convictions up to that point played no part in the decision. Remember what you said:

"Any notions I may have about science, ethics, politics, etc, are not a factor in my being an atheist."

"The only thing that we, as atheists, have in common is our nonbelief in a deity. How we each got to that position doesn't factor into the fact that we are atheists. "

Once again, I admit that each atheist's conviction about those subjects above are likely to differ in some way from other atheists, but I would disagree that each atheist's convictions and world view don't in some cases, perhaps many cases, lead one to become an atheist. From where else would the decision come?

[AuntieSocial]

Anarchat, I agree that each of us had external factors that influences our decision to not believe in a deity and that those factors become part of who we are, as individuals. My political views, my philosophical outlook, etc, are factors that are unique to me. Not all atheists are materialists, yet the American Atheists uses that as part of their mission statement. To me, making that sort of assumption alienates those who don't hold that view.

The question that was originally posed, and answered by AtheistMessiah, was from the Q&A page on the Atheist Anonymous webpage. I still contend that there is no answer of what an atheist believes that will cover us all. So, in answering a question that is meant to be a blanket answer on a Q&A webpage, we can't rightly include our political, ethical, etc beliefs. Your politics may not match mine. My ethical code may not match yours. It has become part of what makes you the person that you are, but is not a part of being an atheist.

There are atheists all over the political spectrum, yes, there are even atheist-conservatives. There are theistic scientists. If politics and science are factors in being an atheist, why are all atheists of the same political party and why are there any theistic scientists? Because these are factors that only affect the individual, they are not a part of the ideology of atheism.

You say that you found no logical reason to believe in a diety? But isn't that a value judgement? Isn't what you're really saying is that you value logic more than the irrational belief in a diety? That in itself is a philosophical stance of sorts. Part of your "position" I would think.

Yes, that is a value judgement. I do value logic and that is what originally lead me to learn more about religion. The more I learned, the less likely it seemed that any deity exists. I cannot suspend my disbelief in favour of having a deity. This is an internal process that is part of who I am. It is because of this process that I don't believe in a lot of other things as well.

I openly admit that if someone could present a case to me that a deity exists, and if accepting that case did not require me to suspend my logic, I would concede that there is a deity (and thus no longer be an atheist). I probably wouldn't worship this new-found deity, though. I have managed to live my life thus far without one.

I'm not trying to be confrontational or controversial here, Anarchat, but I do feel very strongly that we are all individuals and that there is no universal belief or doctrines to atheism. I am cautious about assigning any characteristic to being an atheist (other than not believing in a deity) because it results in alientation.

Huxley already complicated the issue by introducing the term agnostic ... which is errantly deemed to be a fence-sitting position. In reality, there are only two options, theist or atheist. Everyone either has a belief in the existence of a god(s), or they do not. I do not want to add criterium to the term atheist that are not there by definition (such as American Atheists' addition of materialism).

To sum this up, I will say that I am an atheist. I am also a socialist, a secular humanist, a nullifidian, a wife, daughter, sister, aunt. If I was a materialist, I would include that as a seperate label for myself, but I would not role it up and parcel it with being an atheist. If I had strong scientific understanding, I would include that in the definition of who I am, but I wouldn't use it as a guage for other atheists.

I don't know if any of that make sense, but there it is nonetheless.

[Anarchat]

AuntieSocial said:

I'm not trying to be confrontational or controversial here, Anarchat, but I do feel very strongly that we are all individuals and that there is no universal belief or doctrines to atheism. I am cautious about assigning any characteristic to being an atheist (other than not believing in a deity) because it results in alientation.

You presume too much, AuntieSocial. It was never my intention to rob anyone of his individuality or prescribe any prerequisite quality with the intention of encapsulating all atheists. If you read carefully what I've written this you will realize. Rather my intention was simpler, and I now believe this is to be merely a case of miscommunication.

Remember what you've written:

"Any notions I may have about science, ethics, politics, etc, are not a factor in my being an atheist."

"The only thing that we, as atheists, have in common is our nonbelief in a deity. How we each got to that position doesn't factor into the fact that we are atheists. "

As I said once before, and now for the last time, my problem with what you said is that you appear to claim that the circumstances of one's position contributed nothing to one's decision to become an atheist. In other words you appear to claim that one's theoretical and pratical experience in the realms of politics, philosophy, science, and so forth contributed nothing to any atheist's decision to be an atheist. That was the only point I challenged. I countered your claim by stating that it was usually one's experience in the realms of politics, philosophy, science, and life in general that led one to become an atheist. That one's decision to be an atheist is not independent of but a direct result of one's experience in those realms.

This however is my big complaint. Notice that I never defined any default "atheistic position". I never said that there even was one, much less that it was the same or even similar for all atheists. That's why I don't understand your above comment. I never said this or even implied it so why do you think I did?

It doesn't matter. I'll get over it. I do hope I've managed to elucidate my position and I apologize for any misunderstandings.

[Jewel]

pieisgood...you can come over & play with my Jewel doggie. She's really funny & she makes faces at me some days. Will that make you feel better? LOL

Jewel

[AuntieSocial]

Jewel, can we all come over and play with your doggie? Maybe have an Atheists Anonymous get-together at your place & doggie-Jewel can be our hostess?

Anarchat, I apologize for any miscommunications also. I have been giving this a lot of thought over the last couple of days because I’m trying to figure out where this disagreement arose (I’m like that, I would overanalyze a poached egg if it didn’t turn out right, too).

I would like to take one last shot at trying to clarify what I was saying. Then I am prepared to agree to disagree on what I see as a minute difference in opinions. I think this will explain what I was trying to say a little better.

My statements, ("Any notions I may have about science, ethics, politics, etc, are not a factor in my being an atheist." And "The only thing that we, as atheists, have in common is our non-belief in a deity. How we each got to that position doesn't factor into the fact that we are atheists. "), refer to the present state.

Your comments, (“It was my views and experience with science, my evolving secular ethic, and my politics that led me away from religion” and “All I meant to say originally is that the law of causality applies even to one's decision to become an atheist.”), refer to the decision, or the change in us, that resulted in us becoming atheists, the thought process we experienced.

After thinking on the differences in our opinions, I have realized why I separate politics, knowledge of science, etc, from the fact that I am an atheist.

My political view has changed since I have been an atheist. I wasn’t involved in politics when I decided that I didn’t buy the buy-bull. Since I have been an atheist, I have been a Progressive Conservative (provincially) and a Liberal (federally). I am now a New Democrat … my politics have change while I was an atheist. My political views are independent of my atheism.

My understanding of science has, likewise, changed. This change has been in the past few years. For the vast majority of my life, I found that science was extremely difficult for me to grasp (and I still find it difficult). For the vast majority of my life, I have not believed in a deity without a scientific understanding of why a specifically defined deity doesn’t fit into our natural laws.

So, I will agree with you that things like political, ethical and scientific views/understandings can definitely play a factor in you becoming[/b] an atheist. However, I still maintain, (sorry, I’m stubborn at times), that these factors do not define you as an atheist.

Again, I apologize for the miscommunications we were having, Anarchat. I did not mean to infer that you want to “rob anyone of his individuality.” It is just my overly cautious nature (and bear in mind that this question was originally being answered by AtheistMessiah as a response for the Q&A page) that was preventing me from including aspects that are external to the non-belief that all atheists have in common.

As it is, there are atheists out there who will not use the term atheist to describe themselves because of the negative aspects theists have applied to the term. Huxley muddied the waters further by developing the term agnostic, which is basically an ”I-don’t-know-ist” (Judith Hayes in, “In God We Trust; But Which God?”). We have Skeptics, Freethinkers, Brights, Secular Humanists, American Atheists, etc. Each of these groups defines atheism differently. By adding anything to the term atheist that isn’t there by definition, we make the decision to be an atheist all that more complicated for the person who probably is an atheist, but is struggling with the other aspects of what we, as atheist, define ourselves as.

I, as an individual atheist, struggle with answering questions such as “If you don’t believe in God, what do you believe in?” because I can only give my personal opinions. I usually put disclaimers on all of my responses. Something along the lines of, “I can only tell you my beliefs.” Or “Not all atheists will agree with me.” This tendency probably comes from another external influence, not previously mentioned in this thread, my career.

[Anarchat]

AuntieSocial said:

My statements, ("Any notions I may have about science, ethics, politics, etc, are not a factor in my being an atheist." And "The only thing that we, as atheists, have in common is our non-belief in a deity. How we each got to that position doesn't factor into the fact that we are atheists. "), refer to the present state.

Your comments ... refer to the decision, or the change in us, that resulted in us becoming atheists, the thought process we experienced.

This is correct. It has, however, always been my thought that the "thought process we experienced", the one that initially led to atheism, is related to our current position though a process of evolution, for lack of a better word. After all, the way I see it is that if what initially led one to atheism has changed, then either: 1) one would no longer be an atheist, or 2) one would simply have different reasons for being an atheist. Either way one's current position still influences one's decision to be(and continue being) an atheist.

The problem in this is in how you interpreted what I wrote, and how I likely misinterpreted what you wrote. Instead of attempting to define any given atheist by their position, I was simply trying to say that each atheist has reason or cause for being an atheist, which in some form or another usually lies in one's philosophical, political, and scientific views. That for many atheists their lack of belief in God is because of their views and not independent of or in despite of those views. It was never an attempt to define, but an attempt to see root causes.

At any rate, I think I understand your position, now, and you mine, so I suppose we can agree to disagree.

Huxley muddied the waters further by developing the term agnostic, which is basically an ”I-don’t-know-ist”

Orson Welles once said something on this subject that I met with some agreement, "I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose."

We have Skeptics, Freethinkers, Brights, Secular Humanists, American Atheists, etc. Each of these groups defines atheism differently. By adding anything to the term atheist that isn’t there by definition, we make the decision to be an atheist all that more complicated for the person who probably is an atheist, but is struggling with the other aspects of what we, as atheist, define ourselves as.

This actually hits upon many of my thoughts concerning the attempt to define atheism. I wrote a reply in Mav's throad on incorrect definitions of atheism, but he hasn't yet responded.

atheistanon.proboards18.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1074404842

[coolguy]

I just found this site, and I think it's great, I read some essays, and I liked the sound of this thread, so I read it, and decided to post my thoughts...

Anarchat said:

Orson Welles once said something on this subject that I met with some agreement, "I have a great love and respect for religion, great love and respect for atheism. What I hate is agnosticism, people who do not choose."

It sounds like Orson Welles has a great love and respect for blind faith....

I don't. For "unsolved mysteries" like the bermuda triangle, I can pretty much discard a lot of "crazy theories" that try to explain the mysteries. But even if a theory is ridiculous, I can not be 100% certain that it is not true, and even if there is little or no evidence to support it, to disbelieve it would take as much faith as to believe it

So, in practice, I'm atheist, I discard ridiculous theories, I don't take them seriously, but in my heart I'm agnostic, I don't have faith in my heart to choose that which is unknown, unproven. Agnostic means unknowing and to be honest with myself, I must admit that I am unknowing. Doubting, but unknowing. To claim to know that which I don't know requires faith, and I don't have any faith, sorry.

Anyway, if someone asks "if you don't believe in god what do you believe" you can try being funny, say "you mean you believe there is something out there watching over us all the time? OH! I DO BELIEVE there is something out there watching over us all the time!!! Unfortunately, it's the government!"

Also, in place of "loving my imaginary friend god" and in place of fantasizing about heaven or how god might be judging me or something I did, I can spend time loving real friends and loved ones. OR, time loving myself and making myself better OR believing in myself, which is about the only thing I do believe in.

Or, in more other words, instead of wasting time fantasizing about what I subjectively view as "ideal" I can focus my energy on making my life, my existence, as ideal as possible during my finite existence, and since my time is apparently finite, I BELIEVE that is a much wiser and life-affirming use of my time.

Moreoever, I BELIEVE time is precious because lifespan is apparently quite finite, and I BELIEVE time spent believing in God(s) or religion(s) or religious fantasies (heaven, immortality) is misspent, just as time spent playing video games or reading comic books or getting high or otherwise immersing myself in an "unreal world of the imagination" is wasteful, though enjoyable if it's not spent as a compulsive escape from reality (ie, ok in moderation, as long as it doesn't degenerate one's objective grasp on reality; if watching star trek is entertaining to you, that's cool, unless you start to think vulcans are "real" and if the bible is entertaining to you, that's cool, unless you start to think it's tall tales really happened).

Lastly, we have all had uncanny coincidences occur in our lives, where seemingly things happened that just weren't possible, that seemed "miraculous" - that we just didn't have any plausible explanation for. Every person I've met, whether religious or not has had some such thing like this. Myself, I've probably had a dozen. Some more "miraculous" than others. I can't explain those things, I could spend the rest of my life forming "theories" to explain each one, I could spend a great deal of time, all of my finite time, pursuing one theory, and trying to match up every thing else I "know" or "believe" to make that theory more plausible. I could do that, but again, it's misspent time. God is simply a theoretical explanation for anything that is unexplained (or inexplicable, as the case may be). And for anything unexplained, there are infinite possible theories to explain it... so the odds of the God theory as an explanation for anything are pretty bad, in fact, 1 over infity equals 0, as far as I am concerned, which means the chance of one theory being the correct theory out of all the possible (infinite) theoretical explanations is nil. It's like you telling me "pick one number between 1 and 45 billion-zillion-trillion" and me being so cocky and naive and utterly insane enough to think I have correctly guessed the number you are thinking about.