What do atheists believe in?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I'd like to know what do atheists believe in, besides
- scientific reality
- the negation of God

[Chaigidel]

humanism I think is the primary motivation

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Define 'humanism'.

[Chaigidel]

the belief in and the ideal of human potential and capability-- as in we need no gods we are gods unto ourselves

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

the belief in and the ideal of human potential and capability-- as in we need no gods we are gods unto ourselves

Define 'the ideal of human potential and capability'.

[Pallantides]

Duh don't you know atheists worship Richard Dawkins as their divine god emperor?
(sarcasm)

[IronBlood]

- the negation of God

Actually it's the negation of the possibility of any gods not just The God. Or any kind of supernatural or miraculous experiences/ideas (like ghosts).

But Atheistic beliefs vary person to person, as almost everyone has a "unique" reason for denying the Gods or God.

[Dracula]

I'd like to know what do atheists believe in, besides
- scientific reality
- the negation of God

They are pluralistic. They can believe in anything. A common perception cannot be formed about atheism like for the christian religion. They can even belong to a cult that worships nature or something like that,though declaring there is no god.

[Chaigidel]

ideal indicates that the definition varies I cannot explain any but my own and since I am not a humanist nor atheist I can only speak from an observers standpoint.

[Manoflooks]

- scientific reality
- the negation of God

thats is the generally accepted reason. you cant say not to incldue those, that like describing christianity wthout god or jesus.

there are many other factors as well, of course.

[Astaroth]

What do I believe in? That's a hard question. To be honest, I don't believe in much. I accept the scientific facts and truths, if you want to call that "believing". Aside from that? I don't know, I don't believe in morale or ethics, I don't believe in gods or goddesses.

I live my life in a way that is enjoyable to me and to those who I care for. There are no religious guidelines I follow.

[Morlam]

I find it a little odd for atheists to have to be defined as "without god" = a-theist. Might as well be labeled "without flying bananas" or "without purple ventriloquist goat". Don't know the greek for that though, probably "atheist" sounds cooler comes to that.

I think that "to believe" is to uphold an image or an expectation of something you have no certainty for or evidence for. So - in the narrow sense of the term - it's difficult to talk of atheistic beliefs.

[attilavolciak07]

I find it a little odd for atheists to have to be defined as "without god" = a-theist. Might as well be labeled "without flying bananas" or "without purple ventriloquist goat". Don't know the greek for that though, probably "atheist" sounds cooler comes to that.

The prefix 'a' means absense or lack of and theism is the belief in god so it literally means lack of theism or lack of belief in god. It can either mean a choice one chooses or when it is automatic, such as a religion-less people.

[Bovril]

I'd like to know what do atheists believe in, besides
- scientific reality
- the negation of God

You don't even have to believe in either of those to be an atheist. You just have to lack the idea that there's probably a god/gods. You don't have to 'negate' god, you could just be unaware of the concept. As for 'scientific reality', I don't really know what that means, but since you could quite well be an atheist without knowing what science is, you don't need to believe in scientific reality.

[MaximiIian]

I'd like to know what do atheists believe in, besides
- scientific reality
- the negation of God

Atheism is a theological stance, so you can't make broad assumptions outside of a lack of belief in deity. Atheists don't even necessarily have to agree with the reality of scientific information; most do, because it's a logical consequence of critical thinking. Most atheists are secular humanists, but it's not a requirement, obviously. And, atheists don't even have to consciously negate belief in, or believe in the non-existence of, deity; simply to lack belief in it is enough.

Atheism is, like theism, itself only a theological stance, not a religion.

[The Dude]

I'd like to know what do atheists believe in, besides
- scientific reality
- the negation of God

I believe that we don't know anything about the creation of the universe and that it's arrogant to assume that we do.

I also believe that all things are finite and as such I see no necessity to take any religion seriously since most didn't of em exist if you travel back far enough in time, nor will they exist anymore if you travel far enough into the future. Christianity's teachings may be important to us now but 3000 years from now nobody will care about them, which to me essentially breaks any the authority the church may have.

[Dayman]

What do "atheists" believe?

Well athiesm is only one aspect of someone's philosophy, so as someone who happens to be atheistic, that mean I do not believe in God/god/gods/etc.

That is the only unifying factor, and in fact some atheists believe in the non-existence of god (strong atheists) although they are in the minority.

Besides that atheists are...whatever else they are. There are no other "beliefs" or philosophical positions required of atheism, since it's only a part of a philosophy and not a philosophy of its own.

There are atheists who believe in ghosts, who believe in traditional medicine, or who are not the stereotypical scientific skeptic. People have their own reasons for being an atheist, it's either for some (like me) lack of evidence, a bad experience with religion, tragedy in their lives, et al.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

What do I believe in? That's a hard question. To be honest, I don't believe in much. I accept the scientific facts and truths, if you want to call that "believing". Aside from that? I don't know, I don't believe in morale or ethics, I don't believe in gods or goddesses.

How can you not believe in morals and ethics, and beleive that killing an innocent man is bad (random example)?

ideal indicates that the definition varies I cannot explain any but my own and since I am not a humanist nor atheist I can only speak from an observers standpoint.

My only point is how can atheists believe in an ideal they cannot define without metaphysical conclusions. I am asking this from an observer's PoV, too, so don't shoot at me.

You don't even have to believe in either of those to be an atheist. You just have to lack the idea that there's probably a god/gods. You don't have to 'negate' god, you could just be unaware of the concept. As for 'scientific reality', I don't really know what that means, but since you could quite well be an atheist without knowing what science is, you don't need to believe in scientific reality.

How can you explain the source of existence, if science fails to give an acceptable reason for this? (I'm not defending religions here, I disagree with most of their explanations about existence too.) By 'lacking an idea'? So atheists believe in an idea, that they have to 'lack an idea' in order to make the existence reasonable? :hmmm:

Atheism is a theological stance, so you can't make broad assumptions outside of a lack of belief in deity. Atheists don't even necessarily have to agree with the reality of scientific information; most do, because it's a logical consequence of critical thinking. Most atheists are secular humanists, but it's not a requirement, obviously. And, atheists don't even have to consciously negate belief in, or believe in the non-existence of, deity; simply to lack belief in it is enough.

Atheism is, like theism, itself only a theological stance, not a religion.

'Theology' presumes by definition the existence of God(s).

Well athiesm is only one aspect of someone's philosophy, so as someone who happens to be atheistic, that mean I do not believe in God/god/gods/etc.

That is the only unifying factor, and in fact some atheists believe in the non-existence of god (strong atheists) although they are in the minority.

Besides that atheists are...whatever else they are. There are no other "beliefs" or philosophical positions required of atheism, since it's only a part of a philosophy and not a philosophy of its own.

Now we're talking. So basically, atheists don't believe in anything besides these two beliefs.

I've got another question: how can someone believe in scientific reality, if:
- it reduce reality to empirical reality
- it changes from time to time, therefore it's hard to believe, it provides the "finally true" world-view
- it presumes that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a series of chances, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think.
- it fails to give explanation for phenomenons like conscience

[The Dude]

How can you not believe in morals and ethics, and beleive that killing an innocent man is bad (random example)?

If you need a religion to understand that murder is bad, you're pretty far gone. Any atheist that claims not to believe in morals is fooling himself.

My only point is how can atheists believe in an ideal they cannot define without metaphysical conclusions. I am asking this from an observers PoV, too.

Because there is no common faith that binds atheists. Atheism ranges from denying god, to simply not being aware of the concept, to insisting that we couldn't possibly know what created the universe and that its therefore silly to believe in anything (the latter is my PoV).

How can you explain the source of existence, if science fails to give an acceptable reason for this? (I'm not defending religions here, I disagree with most of their explanations about existence too.) By 'lacking an idea'? So atheists believe in an idea, that they have to 'lack an idea' in order to make the existence reasonable? :hmmm:

Why should we explain the source of existence with any tool available on earth? Things are pretty much guaranteed to be more complicated than that. Why is it always either/or? Either you go for science, or you go for religion.

Just that those are the only two options we have knowledge of doesn't mean those are the only two options, period. So again, we can't know. We need to get off this rock and experience some more of the universe first, before we can draw any conclusions about anything. And even that probably won't be enough.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

If you need a religion to understand that murder is bad, you're pretty far gone. Any atheist that claims not to believe in morals is fooling himself.

Oceanus said this, not me.

Because there is no common faith that binds atheists. Atheism ranges from denying god, to simply not being aware of the concept, to insisting that we couldn't possibly know what created the universe and that its therefore silly to believe in anything (the latter is my PoV).

Why is it silly to believe in anything?

You claim that we live in a random universe, live a random life, and random things happen in a random order. I cannot believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it is totally, utterly silly to presume that it will rise indeed, as we cannot reasonably know what could possibly happen that will assist or hinder the rising of the sun. The whole sun could collapse because somewhere, something happens, we cannot know what or why, we only know, it's silly to believe in anything for sure. Therefore, I can't believe that human life will go on; earth may just cease to exist without the energy of the sun. Therefore all lives are meaningless, the whole human existence is utterly meaningless.

Why should we explain the source of existence with any tool available on earth? Things are pretty much guaranteed to be more complicated than that. Why is it always either/or? Either you go for science, or you go for religion.

What is the third option then? Philosophy?