How Much Of Atheism Is A Reaction To Theism?

[Orbit]

This thread came about because of a thread in the Den, in which various definitions of atheism were being proposed. In the Den thread, it devolved into a disagreement about semantics, but I am interested in the larger issues. In a sense, atheists are socially forced to define themselves in relation to theism, even if it is to assert a lack of belief being counter to theism.

 

There are those who argue that the term atheism is as ridiculous as having a word for not collecting stamps--that it should be the default, unmarked position. I find that I wear my atom necklace in reaction to people who wear crosses all the time. Although I enjoy science anyway and am not driven to do so in reaction to religion, I do wear the symbol in reaction to religion.

 

Where do you stand in this debate? How much of your atheism is defined in relation to theism?

[Fernweh]

I've decided the best way to define my non-belief is to tell people I don't believe in god in the same way they don't believe in santa. If that makes me an atheist then whatever.

[florduh]

How much of your atheism is defined in relation to theism?

 

All of it. I can't not believe a specific something unless someone else has concocted something specifically unbelievable for me not to believe.

[Orbit]

 

How much of your atheism is defined in relation to theism?

 

All of it. I can't not believe a specific something unless someone else has concocted something specifically unbelievable for me not to believe.

 

LOL. That is one hell of a sentence. :-)

[Neverlandrut]

In theory, non-belief in god should be a non-issue. However, that isn't practically possible in our society. It's not quite accurate to compare atheism to a-unicorn-ism, because 2/3's of the world does not make all sorts of positive, absolute existence claims about unicorns. Unicorn-ism, and by extension, a-unicorn-ism, is a non issue. Theism has thousands of years of history of being positively believed by people. If we had been raised outside of religious influence, and simply had never seriously thought about whether or not there is a god, then upon introduction to the idea, we could rightly claim "a lack of belief in god." Certainly, there are such people. But most of us do not fall into that category. We were raised to believe in god most of our growing up years, or at least I was. In that case, it's reasonable for us to be expected to give reasons why we no longer believe in god when engaged in a discussion about it. However, my reasons, and anyone's reasons, should include the lack of evidence for god's existence. I'm okay with accepting the notion from theists that atheism is a belief and needs supporting. My support is the lack of evidence for god's existence. Something that does not exist, leaves no evidence. That is precisely the point. The only way to support the idea something does not exist is to demonstrate that all of the proposed evidence for it's existence fails to make it's point. They may retort that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I disagree. That axiom is not always true. Absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence. When we define characteristics of a potential deity and see nothing that we would expect to see if that deity existed, we have supporting information for the belief that the deity likely does not exist (especially since everything that could potentially be contributed to the deity has more coherent, natural explanations). This has been the case for every god concept yet devised. I am willing to concede atheism as a belief, but it is not equivilent in nature to theism as a belief. Atheism is the theoretical default position. When attempting to determine IF something exists, the only logical assumption to begin with is that it does not exist, until such time as evidence arrises which demonstrates otherwise. The non-existence of god is an assumption based on lack of evidence. It is not a factual claim like most forms of theism. Atheism is not proclaiming as fact that god does not exist. It is also a tentative assumption. Evidence will change a reasonable person's mind. But the more arguments and "evidence" I see that attempts to prove god and fails, the more confident I am that there likely is no god.

[Storm]

In my thoughts, atheism is simply the flip side of the same coin with theism being the other side. They are inseparable and go hand in hand. I have come to view atheism as a competing "worldview" with theism. I do understand that it is more of a response to the theistic worldview, however, I also think that it does entail its own tenets of belief. These tenets can vary much like tenets of faith vary among religions and even among the same religion. I do also think that it is classified as a belief, however, I do see the merit in the arguments that were made in the other thread. I have read several articles about whether or not it is a belief and I have come to fall on the side where it is because, despite numerous people saying that you cant prove negative claims, I think atheism also makes positive claims. Atheism can be defended, in my opinion, and because of that fact, it is a belief or a viewpoint, or whatever specific definitive label you want to call it.

[directionless]

For me atheism has a positive definition independent of theism - metaphysical naturalism. Furthermore, I think that most sensible theists are actually atheists on a practical level, because science is so important in our modern world and science assumes atheism to some degree. (I don't claim to be sensible all the time though. )

Metaphysical naturalism, also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism and scientific materialism is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, i.e., those required to understand our physical environment by mathematical modelling.

As noted by Steven Schafersman, methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success (although science does have metaphysical implications), but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

[Orbit]

It occurs to me that an atheist who had never been a Christian might have a different take on this. Perhaps the whole nature and context of being ex-C makes it a more reactive experience.

[gall]

It occurs to me that an atheist who had never been a Christian might have a different take on this. Perhaps the whole nature and context of being ex-C makes it a more reactive experience.

 

I fit this category.

 

I guess in the end the word atheism would not exist and the unbelief in gods would not either if no one ever came up with the ridiculous notion of god in the first place.

 

In that world the OP question is mute and would never be asked or thought of.

 

In our world the only real action is a reaction to something someone came up with that some of us don't agree with and we get labeled the same way they feel the need to label themselves religious.

 

I am me a person who wants proof of claims made by people if they choose to make claims of things that you cannot prove. I am asking so little when they are demanding so much.

[mwc]

     Florduh is pretty much spot-on.

 

     Go down to some random village where they've never heard of pickles and I would think they don't have much opinion on pickles (they may just be anti-pickle since they have no idea what a pickle is).  But if you just drop the idea of being pro/anti pickle and never explain or show them a pickle then it's some strange one-off comment on something they don't know and don't care about.  I would think they have no opinion on pickles and won't form one if the topic is never brought up ever again.

 

     What's your opinion on "Gizoplups?"  You can make something up but I imagine you have no opinion and won't form one if this is the last you hear of it.  I suppose you could say you are a defacto agizoplupist but perhaps that doesn't sit well with you and you want to be agnostist about it so as not to offend and appear open minded.  Not that it matters since the whole thing is nonsense.

 

     "God" would fall into this category if people didn't keep going on about it like it actually had some actual meaning and/or function.

 

          mwc

[ExCBooster]

Edit: whoops, sorry. The point of the below is that, for me, my atheism (for the specific case of the Christian God) isn't a reaction to theism, it's an outgrowth of another, broader stance, entirely.

 

Since so many people in my culture are Christian, and I'm definitely atheist, when it comes to the Christian sort of God, I find it's easier to tell them I'm an atheist. It's probably the fastest possible way to explain how I think, at least in relation to what they believe (and they're usually so self-centered and myopic, that they think this choice between their God and not is all that exists). However, if you want a more complete accounting, I'm actually a very hard ignostic - the position that the concept of "god" is not a valid definition, and therefore cannot be meaningfully debated.

 

Define the word "god" - every culture has its own ideas, and many don't even share the concept. Is it a sense of the numinous? Then, waterfalls, and abandoned theme parks have that. The divine? What, precisely, does this even mean? Power? Bow down, puny mortal, there's an infinitude of things greater than you. Long after we are gone to dust, our Sun, too, will die. Seriously, explore deep time, and the idea that a "God" of ALL would be even remotely interested in what humans do with their reproductive bits becomes absolutely insane. Look at it! This is what you're dealing with. (And, mind-boggling though it is, that only goes as far out and in as we can observe.) The God imagined by fundagelical Christianity - who supposedly created everything a mere 6000 years ago just for humanity, and really cares if you believe in him, and expects followers to adhere to an ever-changing list of social rules - is so, so terribly small, and insignificant, by comparison.

 

The concept of "god" simply isn't one that bears any sort of debate. The definition's heavily tied to culture, and, although the people who do discuss it seem to think that it speaks for a universal truth, this just is not possible, while tied to something so ephemeral, so tiny, as human culture. It's not a truly universal thing. The issue isn't even that I "don't believe" in the divine: "the divine" has simply not been at all been defined in a way that is possible to make any sense of, let alone debate. Even some atheists seem to give the concept itself far too much credibility.

 

That said, however, for the Christian God, they have a definition, and for many, many, many, reasons, only some of which are touched on above, like problems of scale, this definition describes an impossible thing, an artifact of culture, not a real entity. So, with regards to the Christian God, I certainly am an atheist. It's far too small and petty and narrow to be any sort of God of All. Utter nonsense. Part of the problem with this approach, of course, is that people will change the definition, and say "that doesn't describe MY God, which is far more grand and all-encompassing" - the whole point of a definition is that it is stable, and can be used to describe exactly what it defines. "God" has a definition that is a moving target - it's no definition at all. That's why "god" in the general sense is not even a valid concept that can be debated meaningfully.

[mymistake]

I notice those who are without belief tend to have a very practical and down to earth understanding of what it is like to be without belief.  It is those who are not without belief who usually try to define being without belief as a belief.

 

I was a Christian for over 30 years so I will have baggage from that for the rest of my life.  In that sense I am reacting to Christianity.  If for no other reason I like to do something with all the information about Christianity that I put into my head. I can reproduce half the Bible from memory.  And I am still surrounded by a Christian family and a Christian culture.  So I can only dream of a world where people don't think about religion.  It would be wonderful if people didn't waste so much energy on this stuff but that isn't the world we live in now.

[Bedouin]

I ran across this article that relates to the question in the OP. I agree with the author's opinion that the word "atheism" is currently used as a pejorative.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/pray-to-jesus--or-else_b_5683013.html?utm_hp_ref=atheism

[midniterider]

 

How much of your atheism is defined in relation to theism?

 

All of it. I can't not believe a specific something unless someone else has concocted something specifically unbelievable for me not to believe.

 

 

I agree with that. If you aren't aware of it you dont hold a position on it. You cannot have an opinion about something of which you are unaware.

[midniterider]

In theory, non-belief in god should be a non-issue.

 

 

I agree. But instead we kill for it and legislate for it. Absurd.

 

It occurs to me that an atheist who had never been a Christian might have a different take on this. Perhaps the whole nature and context of being ex-C makes it a more reactive experience.

 

Undoubtedly.  A never-Christian atheist probably cant fathom why an Ex-c atheist would be reactive.

[Neverlandrut]

Edit: whoops, sorry. The point of the below is that, for me, my atheism (for the specific case of the Christian God) isn't a reaction to theism, it's an outgrowth of another, broader stance, entirely.

 

Since so many people in my culture are Christian, and I'm definitely atheist, when it comes to the Christian sort of God, I find it's easier to tell them I'm an atheist. It's probably the fastest possible way to explain how I think, at least in relation to what they believe (and they're usually so self-centered and myopic, that they think this choice between their God and not is all that exists). However, if you want a more complete accounting, I'm actually a very hard ignostic - the position that the concept of "god" is not a valid definition, and therefore cannot be meaningfully debated.

 

Define the word "god" - every culture has its own ideas, and many don't even share the concept. Is it a sense of the numinous? Then, waterfalls, and abandoned theme parks have that. The divine? What, precisely, does this even mean? Power? Bow down, puny mortal, there's an infinitude of things greater than you. Long after we are gone to dust, our Sun, too, will die. Seriously, explore deep time, and the idea that a "God" of ALL would be even remotely interested in what humans do with their reproductive bits becomes absolutely insane. Look at it!

. (And, mind-boggling though it is, that only goes as far out and in as we can observe.) The God imagined by fundagelical Christianity - who supposedly created everything a mere 6000 years ago just for humanity, and really cares if you believe in him, and expects followers to adhere to an ever-changing list of social rules - is so, so terribly small, and insignificant, by comparison.

 

The concept of "god" simply isn't one that bears any sort of debate. The definition's heavily tied to culture, and, although the people who do discuss it seem to think that it speaks for a universal truth, this just is not possible, while tied to something so ephemeral, so tiny, as human culture. It's not a truly universal thing. The issue isn't even that I "don't believe" in the divine: "the divine" has simply not been at all been defined in a way that is possible to make any sense of, let alone debate. Even some atheists seem to give the concept itself far too much credibility.

 

That said, however, for the Christian God, they have a definition, and for many, many, many, reasons, only some of which are touched on above, like problems of scale, this definition describes an impossible thing, an artifact of culture, not a real entity. So, with regards to the Christian God, I certainly am an atheist. It's far too small and petty and narrow to be any sort of God of All. Utter nonsense. Part of the problem with this approach, of course, is that people will change the definition, and say "that doesn't describe MY God, which is far more grand and all-encompassing" - the whole point of a definition is that it is stable, and can be used to describe exactly what it defines. "God" has a definition that is a moving target - it's no definition at all. That's why "god" in the general sense is not even a valid concept that can be debated meaningfully.

Those are some good points!

 

I've been making that same point about the lack of a definition of god lately. Once the literary, mythological concepts of god are set asside in order to assess some general "god" concept, you really have nothing to go on. We have no working definition of what a "god" is. What makes a being a god? We have discovered nothing that we can meaningfully place the label of "god" upon. Anything that theists propose from this stance is exactly as you said, a moving target, an infinitely redefinable blob of non-meaning and non-coherent description.