The Trouble With Atheism

[Legion]

Geez, I think you guys are a tough crowd.

 

For what it's worth I spotted a number of flaws in this video. But I agree with a number of points I think he was trying to make. First, I doubt that if atheism was suddenly adopted by all of humanity tomorrow then world peace would ensue. Second, I think the effort to impose a belief, or lack of belief, can cause a tremendous amount of conflict. For many of us here this seems to be our primary beef with Christianity and Islam. So how is an atheist different from a theist if he is still of a mindset to impose his or her viewpoint on another?

[Dave]

For what it's worth I spotted a number of flaws in this video. But I agree with a number of points I think he was trying to make. First, I doubt that if atheism was suddenly adopted by all of humanity tomorrow then world peace would ensue.

The only way for world peace, as humanity is now, is to eliminate humans. That's also the only way to "save" the planet environment wise. Religion, or lack of, is not the problem - humans are.

Second, I think the effort to impose a belief, or lack of belief, can cause a tremendous amount of conflict. In some sense this is many of our primary beef with Christianity and Islam. So how is an atheist different from a theist if he is still of a mindset to impose his or her viewpoint on another?

I don't think you'd find many Atheists that want to impose Atheism on anyone. We are the ones preaching tolerance since we are the ones that know what religious discrimination is like.

[Legion]

The only way for world peace, as humanity is now, is to eliminate humans. That's also the only way to "save" the planet environment wise. Religion, or lack of, is not the problem - humans are.

I think we will see our way through these troubling times. I have not yet given up on people.

 

I don't think you'd find many Atheists that want to impose Atheism on anyone.

Yet for many this is precisely what the intentions of people like Dawkins, Harris, and others are thought to be.

[Asimov]

First, I doubt that if atheism was suddenly adopted by all of humanity tomorrow then world peace would ensue.

 

I agree, atheist isn't an ethical system, so it's kind of hard for that to happen.

 

Second, I think the effort to impose a belief, or lack of belief, can cause a tremendous amount of conflict. For many of us here this seems to be our primary beef with Christianity and Islam. So how is an atheist different from a theist if he is still of a mindset to impose his or her viewpoint on another?

 

He isn't...what's wrong with that?

[Asimov]

Yet for many this is precisely what the intentions of people like Dawkins, Harris, and others are thought to be.

 

That's because they see that religion has nothing positive to offer the world, that it has caused more harm that good and that it needs to be eradicated. I don't think Dawkins and Harris are trying to convert people to Atheism (it's not a belief system so that's impossible), they are trying to spread the idea that being irrationally dogmatic is demonstratively bad.

[Clergicide]

How is atheism not a belief system? I don't understand.

I don't understand how Atheism can be a belief system? Atheism is a LACK of belief and can no more be a belief than bald can be a hair color.

That's (so-called) "weak" atheism (no belief in God). I, however, consider myself a "strong" atheist (belief in no God). I think that's certainly a belief. Not really a system though, I'll agree, but more than 90% of the time it goes hand in hand with principles of observation and deduction, etc. which one could arguably call a system of beliefs, values, and methods. Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by system.

 

Asimov and I went round and round on this premise. Atheism as properly defined is the rejection of a belief in god or gods, or the disbelief in god or gods.

 

Belief, when stronger than opinion, that god or gods do not exist, is something else, something akin to faith because there is a level of conviction of truth present about something beyond available proof or evidence. It's this strawman that Dave is likely so sick of. The problem is, there's no other term for it. And weak, strong, positive, or flatulent atheism is absurd. I tend to think that this strange subdivision of 'strong atheists' was the catalyst for agnosticism, which makes a special point of renouncing that group.

[Dave]

The only way for world peace, as humanity is now, is to eliminate humans. That's also the only way to "save" the planet environment wise. Religion, or lack of, is not the problem - humans are.

I think we will see our way through these troubling times. I have not yet given up on people.

That why I said; "humanity as it is now." We've got a lot of changes to make BEFORE any meaningful progress is made.

I don't think you'd find many Atheists that want to impose Atheism on anyone.

Yet for many this is precisely what the intentions of people like Dawkins, Harris, and others are thought to be.

That's because they speak out and publicly defend their Atheism. Many believers actually believe that if they are not allowed to impose their beliefs on everyone then they are being persecuted. Atheists are just trying to keep the believers out of our lives, our schools, our governments, and so on. The believers can keep their religious beliefs in their own churches and homes.

[Dave]

Asimov and I went round and round on this premise. Atheism as properly defined is the rejection of a belief in god or gods, or the disbelief in god or gods.

Rejection requires a statement. Lack of belief does not. Atheism only requires a lack of belief, not a statement against belief. I do reject all gods that I've heard about, but that is not necessary to be an Atheist, nor do I think it should be.

Belief, when stronger than opinion, that god or gods do not exist, is something else, something akin to faith because there is a level of conviction of truth present about something beyond available proof or evidence. It's this strawman that Dave is likely so sick of. The problem is, there's no other term for it.

it's the equivocation set up by using the word "belief." There are several meanings of that word and it's always the religious belief, a faith, that is connoted instead of a belief based on empirical evidence.

And weak, strong, positive, or flatulent atheism is absurd. I tend to think that this strange subdivision of 'strong atheists' was the catalyst for agnosticism, which makes a special point of renouncing that group.

I'd agree with that. I've noticed that the various divisions of Atheism are always worded so that the persons favorite division is twisted to sound more logical than the others.

[Asimov]

Belief, when stronger than opinion, that god or gods do not exist, is something else, something akin to faith because there is a level of conviction of truth present about something beyond available proof or evidence. It's this strawman that Dave is likely so sick of. The problem is, there's no other term for it. And weak, strong, positive, or flatulent atheism is absurd. I tend to think that this strange subdivision of 'strong atheists' was the catalyst for agnosticism, which makes a special point of renouncing that group.

 

As Clergicide would prefer it be put,

 

I don't believe there are no gods, I contend that there are no gods.

[KT45]

Just a quick question. When Liddle brought up the french atheist killing christians and Stalin killing millions, is it that their specific atheist philosophies were corrupt and not atheism as a whole? Is their a specific atheist philosophy that is best or are a variety of atheist philosophies acceptable (humanism, objectivism, naturalism, marxism, darwinism etc)? I ask the last question because the video brought up the question "what if" atheism were to replace religion.

[Dave]

Just a quick question. When Liddle brought up the french atheist killing christians and Stalin killing millions, is it that their specific atheist philosophies were corrupt and not atheism as a whole?

It was their philosophies, not Atheism itself. Nothing they did was done in the name of Atheism or to promote Atheism.

Is their a specific atheist philosophy that is best or are a variety of atheist philosophies acceptable (humanism, objectivism, naturalism, marxism, darwinism etc)?

There is no Atheist philosophy. However, many Atheists are Secular Humanists for the moral/philosophical stuff and naturalists for the scientific stuff. "Darwinism" is a pejorative term used by Creationists.

I ask the last question because the video brought up the question "what if" atheism were to replace religion.

Such a paradigm shift would take a few hundred years and all the problems would be worked out along the way.

[Clergicide]

Rejection requires a statement. Lack of belief does not. Atheism only requires a lack of belief, not a statement against belief. I do reject all gods that I've heard about, but that is not necessary to be an Atheist, nor do I think it should be.

 

As I said, properly defined it means either or, with no requirements for both premises. I would argue, however, that the concept of atheism can only exist in the presence of it's opposite. I would further contend that to knowingly adopt the position of atheism one is, by semantic necessity, rejecting the alternative, because it is declining to accept it.

 

As Clergicide would prefer it be put,

 

I don't believe there are no gods, I contend that there are no gods.

 

Well put.

 

I ask the last question because the video brought up the question "what if" atheism were to replace religion.

 

China is decent model for this if you're really curious. I haven't decided yet if their analytical capacities are the result of their philisophical constructs or vice versa.

[Dave]

As I said, properly defined it means either or, with no requirements for both premises. I would argue, however, that the concept of atheism can only exist in the presence of it's opposite.

I can not agree with that. Duality arguments have never made sense to me. If religions did not exist, everyone would automatically be Atheists.

I would further contend that to knowingly adopt the position of atheism one is, by semantic necessity, rejecting the alternative, because it is declining to accept it.

Atheism is a default position. No statement, or rejection, is needed. There are millions of "revealed" gods I do not know about so how could I reject them? If no one knew about gods, how could they reject them?

[Bobo]

Geez, I think you guys are a tough crowd.

 

For what it's worth I spotted a number of flaws in this video. But I agree with a number of points I think he was trying to make. First, I doubt that if atheism was suddenly adopted by all of humanity tomorrow then world peace would ensue. Second, I think the effort to impose a belief, or lack of belief, can cause a tremendous amount of conflict. For many of us here this seems to be our primary beef with Christianity and Islam. So how is an atheist different from a theist if he is still of a mindset to impose his or her viewpoint on another?

 

I've heard this argument a number of times...and it really misses the point. I don't have a problem with Christians and Muslims attempting to persuade people so long as it's peaceful. My problem with Christianity and Islam lies in the fact that they don't make sense. As long as facts matter, then we shouldn't hesitate to criticize a belief system. I worry, however, that postmodernism has devalued evidence because it tends to lead us toward the unpleasantness of absolute truth. In a world with no absolutes of any kind, facts don't matter.

 

I know a number of Christians, Muslims and even Bah'a'is who choose gentler, less extreme methods. For their mental health, this is probably ideal. They're good citizens and nobody could accuse them of being judgmental. They seem much, much happier than I am. But that makes them deluded, not ideal. Plus, compromise positions on faith (such as a non-literal view of Genesis) create serious logical problems for more central tenets of religion. For example, if God did not create humans separately, when exactly did the soul form? And, if God behaves in a more deistic manner (as opposed to being an incompetent or cruel designer), why in the world would He incarnate himself and become a blood sacrifice?

 

Faith regularly causes good people to behave irrationally and, perhaps, dangerously. In some cases, it causes wars. Removing it might not end ALL the wars, but it could end some of them. Israelis and Palestinians might be able to stop fighting over such a tiny country if they didn't all think that God promised the sacred land to their people. Many of us are atheists because we have learned how to evaluate scientific evidence and dissect philosophical arguments. Perhaps if more people learned these skills they wouldn't feel such a need to prove that God is on their side by waging war.

[Bobo]

So there!

[Clergicide]

As I said, properly defined it means either or, with no requirements for both premises. I would argue, however, that the concept of atheism can only exist in the presence of it's opposite.

I can not agree with that. Duality arguments have never made sense to me. If religions did not exist, everyone would automatically be Atheists.

 

You are correct that in absence of the existence of religion, that technically one would not believe in god or gods. But atheism would not be a concept given that condition, it is only meaningful because we recognize the existence of religion.

 

I would further contend that to knowingly adopt the position of atheism one is, by semantic necessity, rejecting the alternative, because it is declining to accept it.

Atheism is a default position. No statement, or rejection, is needed. There are millions of "revealed" gods I do not know about so how could I reject them? If no one knew about gods, how could they reject them?

 

If no one knew about gods or religion, then those concepts hold no meaning to them, as such atheism would hold no meaning to them. Without the concepts and without the meaning it is impossible to have a position. Atheism does not mean not having a concept of religion. Not having a concept of religion is not having a concept of religion.

 

If you were to breach this condition by walking up to such a person and saying, "Hey, here's God, what do you think of this idea?" and they said, "Fuck off, that's retarded nonsense.", then you would have shifted them to atheism, because only then are all conditions met.

[Legion]

As long as facts matter, then we shouldn't hesitate to criticize a belief system. I worry, however, that postmodernism has devalued evidence because it tends to lead us toward the unpleasantness of absolute truth. In a world with no absolutes of any kind, facts don't matter.

I'm not suggesting that the facts don't matter. The only thing I'm trying to suggest is that a case can be made for the humble atheist. I'm not talking about a false humility which in it's own way can be worse than naked arrogance in my opinion. It is possible for us to assume a sincere humility born of the knowledge that all we have is each other and an uncertain future.

[Dave]

You are correct that in absence of the existence of religion, that technically one would not believe in god or gods. But atheism would not be a concept given that condition, it is only meaningful because we recognize the existence of religion.

"Technically" religions and god beliefs do exist. Anyone not believing in them is an Atheist. Again, no statement need be made.

If no one knew about gods or religion.....

Since that condition does not exist, it doesn't make for a good argument. Even if a person does not know about gods, then they would not believe in any. That would make them an Atheist.

[Clergicide]

If no one knew about gods or religion.....

Since that condition does not exist, it doesn't make for a good argument. Even if a person does not know about gods, then they would not believe in any. That would make them an Atheist.

 

It was your premise.

 

By your understanding, infants, the mentally incapcitated, and ameoba are by default atheist. You're saying that if a Christian takes a blow to the head and is no longer capable of cogent thought, that atheists have won another mind. That's absurd.

[Dave]

If no one knew about gods or religion.....

Since that condition does not exist, it doesn't make for a good argument. Even if a person does not know about gods, then they would not believe in any. That would make them an Atheist.

It was your premise.

That never was my premise.

By your understanding, infants, the mentally incapcitated, and ameoba are by default atheist. You're saying that if a Christian takes a blow to the head and is no longer capable of cogent thought, that atheists have won another mind. That's absurd.

No, that's just the way it is. Now is when people usually bring in the rock or animal strawman argument. "Since rocks do not believe in gods, they must also be Atheists." I like to stick to reality and people that actually have a functioning brain.

[Asimov]

You are correct that in absence of the existence of religion, that technically one would not believe in god or gods. But atheism would not be a concept given that condition, it is only meaningful because we recognize the existence of religion.

 

I think you both are being silly.

 

If the God concept didn't exist, then the concept of Atheism would not exist either. The state that Atheism describes would exist.

 

Wahoo!

[Antlerman]

I would argue, however, that the concept of atheism can only exist in the presence of it's opposite. I would further contend that to knowingly adopt the position of atheism one is, by semantic necessity, rejecting the alternative, because it is declining to accept it.

I think this is largely the problem with the term atheist. It is by necessity in relationship to theist. I like looking at "atheist" as the natural position of being human, and it's only a necessary word because of theists. No child is born with a theistic belief, and therefore has "no-god" in their understanding of anything in the world.

 

Really, no one becomes an atheist. They are born that way. They only "become" one when someone defines them as not believing in a god myth. So, should we instead say, "I take the default position on that question", rather than "I dis -believe in god?" When we deconvert, we techically are not becoming an atheist. We are abandoning an extra belief and just defaulting back to being what we were when we were born - a normal human being. (I like that word better actually, "No, I don't believe in a god. I'm just normal." )

 

Furthermore, when thinking about it, why is "atheism" even a word? Is it really an "ism"? What qualifies it as an "ism"? Isn't it sort of like me talking about my gender as "maleism", or a woman using the word, "femaleism"? Perhaps we should speak of our tallism, or shortism, our blondeism, or brunetteism, etc. There is no "ism" in being simply what you are! What school of thought influenced culture to define it this way anyway? Christianity? That would make sense. Logically it makes no sense to use that word. Illogically (or religiously) it becomes apparant what it's all about.

[Dave]

.....Really, no one becomes an atheist. They are born that way. They only "become" one when someone defines them as not believing in a god myth. So, should we instead say, "I take the default position on that question", rather than "I dis -believe in god?" When we deconvert, we techically are not becoming an atheist. We are abandoning an extra belief and just defaulting back to being what we were when we were born - a normal human being. (I like that word better actually, "No, I don't believe in a god. I'm just normal." )

Don't forget those of us that never were converted. I can never remember a time in my life where I actually believed in that crap they were forcing on me.

[Antlerman]

Don't forget those of us that never were converted. I can never remember a time in my life where I actually believed in that crap they were forcing on me.

In which case then, you were never "not normal", and are to be envied.

[Dave]

Don't forget those of us that never were converted. I can never remember a time in my life where I actually believed in that crap they were forcing on me.

In which case then, you were never "not normal", and are to be envied.

But I am far from "normal".