Is Atheism A Conclusion Or A Belief?

[Antlerman]

but if people feel a certain way there might be something there, no?

Or not. I've had a few people insinuate lately that I might still be a Christian. In these cases I chalk it up to them not following what I'm saying, and where that fault may lay is simple in the level of details and the types of concepts I'm dealing with. Without proper context, the "fill-in-the-gaps" mode (or paranoia streak in some cases) kicks in.

 

To Rev's point, I don't slight him expressing his question or concern. In fact, I applaud it.

 

Completely agree. And it's why I usually stay out of this forum altogether. I only read and posted today because AM started a thread and I usually like to read what he has to say. He's taught me a thing or two on more than one occasion even though we don't always see eye to eye.

A few points: That you choose to allow others to explore their path for themselves when you don't feel you can contribute in those areas epitomizes what I consider maturity and growth. You not only feel no need to go in an correct others, but you support them by allowing them their freedom. Major Kudos. That's what this should all be about.

 

Secondly, thank you for your compliments. I'm glad that above and beyond points we butt up against each on sometime, we hold each other in esteem. You've taught me as well.

[Legion]

And I think A-man has a point that people who want to express their fuzzy bunny feelings should have a safe place to do it.

Fuzzy bunny feelings??? That disappoints me from the likes of you.

 

Rule #1: Always speak to your audience. My audience there was the militant atheists.

[Antlerman]

And I think A-man has a point that people who want to express their fuzzy bunny feelings should have a safe place to do it.

Fuzzy bunny feelings??? That disappoints me from the likes of you.

 

Rule #1: Always speak to your audience. My audience there was the militant atheists.

Oh. I missed that. Of course you did state it as ME saying they should have a place for their bunny feelings. Hence the quick reaction.

[VacuumFlux]

To answer the original question, I'd say it depends on the person.

 

For the atheists I know whose parents are Christian, they both came to their atheism (weak atheism) as a reasoned conclusion. They just weren't able to accept the worldview their parents presented, and concluded that there was no good reason to believe in god. These are the people I turn to when I need to discuss my family issues, or my attempts at working out a livable moral system, because they know what I've been through and have worked hard to come to the conclusions they have.

 

On the other hand, I know some people who were raised in anti-religious households who I might consider "militant" atheists. I put that in quotes because they're not really activists, they're just... dismissive and derogatory towards believers. They seem to either ignore my Christian upbringing (and my Christianity, when I still considered myself one) or be baffled that it was ever an issue for me. I consider their atheism a belief because they seem incapable of empathising with the theist perspective.

 

Personally, I would call myself a weak atheist and a materialist. However, I still have some rather mystical tendencies, and I don't think that's a bad thing. My atheism is mostly a conclusion I have come to; science seems to be telling us that it is reasonable for complex things (like humans) to result from simpler (as if organic chemistry is simple!) processes. Humans are amazing good at pattern recognition and empathy (mirror neurons are awesome), so the idea of god(s) seems to me to just be a huge example of the human tendency to anthropomorphize non-sentient entities. I know I do that a lot; my computers each have a gender that I have assigned to them, even though I know that gender doesn't apply to machines. But I also think the human experiences of wonder, awe, and the whole set of mystical feelings are... a neat part of the human experience, and not incompatible with a materialistic worldview. I particularly want to be better at meditation as a way to gain better control over myself in order to be a happier, more mature, more moral/ethical adult. So I hang around this forum for tips on developing an appreciation for this one chance I get at being alive, and how to gain/practice self-control. And I want to see a broader view of... ways to be human, because that helps me understand better who/what I am.

 

Edit/PS: The title of this message board made me think of a different way to say that last paragraph. I, as an atheist, hang around this part of the forum for the "Spirituality", not the "Theism". I define spirituality as intentionally cultivating a healthy emotional life; my atheism only deals with the logical part of me. Christianity makes all sorts of false claims about how to have a healthy emotional life, and trying to live that way was damaging. To make a bad metaphor, atheism explains the cards the (non-sentient) universe "dealt" me; spirituality is about playing them well. This board deals with a different set of "how to go about living" questions than the "ex-christian life" forum does, so I find many of these threads useful. (Sorry about using "board" and "forum" interchangeably, I'm too tired to remember which is correct.)

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

To illustrate my point, is this a true statement. "Atheism is a conclusion. Theism is a conclusion." True or false?

true...just becomes a matter of seeing which conclusion is correct.

[Vigile]

 

 

Great post VF. I really enjoyed reading it.

[Guest ephymeris]

I'm so enjoying this thread. I consider myself an atheist so why do I frequent the spirituality forums? Because I enjoy reading the experiences of others, because I want to support others in their journey (a journey with no final destination in my opinion), because I am fascinated with how other people think and feel. Is atheism a belief or conclusion? I don't know how to answer that, I just don't believe in anything I would consider a god. I have awe for the forces that perpetuate our universe, our lives but I don't consider these things supernatural. However, that doesn't mean they aren't sacred to me.

 

I read the spirituality forum because I want to hear opinions that aren't my own so I keep searching, learning, and experiencing. I don't want to be the end all, be all of my life. I want to gather from others even if it is something I do not choose to assimiliate into my own life. I think it's a good thing to have a place for ex-c's who have other theist/spiritual/religious beliefs to express themeselves and gather from the experiences of others without being told nonbelief is the destination, the goal.

 

To be honest, I am often intimidated to join in most atheistic debates because I don't feel as assured or educated in philosophical debate as most atheists seem to be. I guess the definition for "weak" atheist is best for me, though I hate that name.

[Antlerman]

Very good post. Thank you. It inspires.

[pitchu]

After thinking about it, here's how I answer the question for myself:

 

Both "believing" and "concluding" are active verbs. Being an atheist is not an active choice. Rather, after actively pursuing beliefs and drawing conclusions and ultimately finding them all indefensible, being an atheist comes from the passive acceptance of what's left.

 

(It's not a sad passivity, either. It's a welcome relief. It's also why, aside from this thread, I avoid this forum... not everyone wants to and/or is ready to be relieved of "believing" and "concluding," re: the god-concept, so I am no help to them.)

[Vigile]

I guess the definition for "weak" atheist is best for me, though I hate that name.

 

Weak atheist just means you find yourself not believing in god(s), as opposed to asserting that there is no god(s). I'm a weak atheist too.

[Deva]

Very good post. Thank you. It inspires.

 

Same here. Thank you ephymeris.

[Guest ephymeris]

Weak atheist just means you find yourself not believing in god(s), as opposed to asserting that there is no god(s). I'm a weak atheist too.

 

I know what the definition is, I just don't like the term "weak"

 

Edit to add:

 

Thanks AM, Deva. I just feel like I'm in the middle sometimes, not "atheist" enough but not theistic. One of the big reasons I left christianity was that I was sick of people pretending to have all the answers, I still feel uncomfortable with that same attitude whether it comes from a position of atheism or other religious beliefs. I do feel relief and freedom from being able to look at things logically and make my own decisions but not to the point that I discount the experiences of others.

[Vigile]

So you're strongly a weak atheist. Better?

[Guest ephymeris]

So you're strongly a weak atheist. Better?

 

LOL yes! I'll take it! It's all in the semantics

[Yrth]

Hey AM, thanks for taking the time to reply.

It’s probably a good idea for me to reiterate that I don’t support the attitudes for which this thread was originally created. But that’s only because I think people should treat each other well, not because I think the ideas behind them are incorrect. With respect, though you attempt to sidestep it, it still seems like you are trying to ‘change hearts’ ‘through reason’ by suggesting that we are beginning from the same starting point. “That, is my motive for trying to use reason to speak to them, perhaps citing that they really aren't so different, in the hope that maybe, just maybe, some humility could touch their heart.” Oh, but they are very different, or else I would have given up and gone wholesale catholic 3 years ago because, hell, why not believe in a virgin birth?

To me, it would seem logical to evaluate any criticism with an open mind, especially when if that same argument is presented from others outside the Christian camps. The danger is in assuming we are now right, and anything anyone says is just an ignorant attack. For me, when I say something like any of this, its meant as a provocation to not be complacent, to not assume some new truth as a "new religion" (in effect), but rather to keep going. Always challenge assumptions. Always challenge ideas. And..... always challenge your conclusions!

Does this make good sense?

Yes and no. In any paradigm, certain levels of criticism are received differently than others. Questioning the foundational assumptions from within a paradigm brings you outside the circle, an anomaly. And unless the paradigm can adapt to resolve the anomaly without breaking itself, the schism is permanent. Because progress requires a certain degree of assuming, or close-mindedness. I read Kuhn and Taylor, and this is still how I picture moral and metaphysical 'horizons' --- x, y, and z axis, moving with respect to the truth and the good.

I agree that criticism should be evaluated with an open mind, with the cautionary that even "open minds" have natural boundaries. And it does in fact help that this same argument is not coming from a Christian camp, and the warning against complacency is well received. Nevertheless, I don’t see a middle ground regarding the supernatural. It's not about the best conceptual apparatus to becoming better humans, it's about seeing what's really there and what's not.

Again, I have no issues with non-theist, or atheist positions. Not at all. I considered myself one for years, and in certain contexts you could call me one now. I didn't care for the sort of Sam Harris-style atheism when I self-identified as one myself, and nothing has changed in that attitude from then to now. It has nothing to do with how I see things now. It has, and always has had, everything to do with what is in a person's actions. That to me, reflects the true value, the real truth of a belief to that person. it's not just some abstract position, some theory, some metaphysics, but it is about personal growth and transformation

Is atheism giving that to someone? I will embrace that for them and support that for them. Is it just some new goddamn dogma that they transferred over from their Christian experience into some new Truth? I'll respect that for them as part of their process, but I won't respect it when it imposes itself on others in their new/revised Dogmatism. I see it as a weak position, not a stronger, developing one. Don't you?

When you say that a person's actions reflect the true value and the real truth of a belief to that person, I understand that to refer to the difference between dogmatic thinking and personal engagement with the concepts and their existential ramifications. I think we would agree that the actual (objective) truth of the matter is a separate and distinct consideration.

To answer you, yes, and there is even empirical proof. Psychologists have shown that extreme views are far more likely to flip to the opposite extreme as opposed to their more cautious neighbors whose opinions move much more slowly.

 

I don't believe in the Christian portrait of Deity, not for scientific evidence reasons, but for existential reasons, for moral reasons, for spiritual reasons. However, that said, I also can understand it as a more immature face, a projection of Daddy in childlike anthropomorphic images as a stage of development, hopefully; much in the way a child develops imaging their mommy and daddy will make everything OK for them, that they control the world because they're all powerful in his eyes. So in that light, I don't feel quite so much need to call them stupid idiots. After all, it appealed to me at one point? That must same something.

First, yes, needing to blast others as stupid idiots is not positive for anyone. All the superiority complexes fail to recognize the ultimate frailty of all human knowledge. For all we know, we could all be the sippy-cup dream of an alien newborn, it’s possible.

Nevertheless, all religions seem to have been ‘projections’ of some kind to account for things people did not understand. So when I hear about God as some sort of prototype concept, I can’t help but suspect that they’re reasoning is backwards or lacking. That doesn’t then incite me to scream at them, but it does put limits on the criticisms I’m willing to entertain.

No. Not necessarily. If you define theism as the mythological image of God presented in the Bible, then yes! I agree. Atheism is a step forward, away from myth into reason. But no, if I personally was to view atheism as the final and highest step for mankind. I can see theism, in a non-literal, symbolic approach, a mask on That which is beyond the mask put on the Infinite, which they give it the name "God"; then I personally can see that itself as tool to something beyond what we have in all our empirical, science based worldviews. I can see theism useful to this. I may or may not find it useful to me. But it isn't theism that would be the end, but the Infinite itself. And that, is beyond any system. That is the Goal.

 

This is what I believe, but that is not my "conclusion". That's always evolving, and needs to - for all of us. And that's the power of breaking free from Dogma. Right?

I am interested in this. A non-literal, symbolic approach to the unknown / infinity. What’s hard is the further step to incorporate that inward attitude to objective claims. I would give the benefit of the doubt but for statements like this one: “Then I personally can see that itself as a tool to something beyond what we have in all our empirical, science based worldviews.” Is that tool just entirely personal and entirely unrelated to anything else in the objective universe? If so, neat, that sounds interesting and I’d like to read more about that. If not, then please say so.