Atheism Peaks, While Spiritual Groups Move Toward Convergence

[Sarpedon]

I got it. You were mocking peoples beliefs about the worldview of atheism.

You bet, if you don't want mockery, why don't you bring out some evidence?

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

This match is not a not a psychological state of mind. It is a destructive force to destroy theism.

No. The match is metaphor. It is the power that a small amount of reasoning and evidence can have over poor reasoning and no evidence. If you want to look at it as non-destructive, then I'll extend the metaphor.

"It is a match that burns down the walls that have been blinding the religious for their entire lives."

It's fucking hokey and I resent you for making me write something like that. But there you go: now it's no longer "destructive."

But your implication is also that it would be a bad thing if religion were destroyed by atheism. I disagree for many reasons.

What does “Atheists just don’t believe in god.” mean? They lack belief or that God does not exist?

That's not a very clever distinction. Why would one believe, that is, not lack belief, yet not believe? Atheists see no convincing evidence for god, so they don't believe there is a god. It cannot be any clearer than that. And that's exactly what I was saying. Rather than take the simple definition as it is, you want to mash it into something it isn't. But the bad news for you is that there isn't a lot to work with.

If you want to find out what atheist's views of the world are, start skipping around the forums here. You'll come up with a couple of loose observations: atheists are usually politically and socially liberal. And good luck with trying to divine anything approaching a cohesive view much beyond that.

 

[remez]

I get your reasons for claiming that atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief" and is not a worldview. Your definition is nothing more than a psychological state of mind. Yet others on this thread seem to take a direction that atheism is the worldview that God does not exist which naturally leads to an opposing worldview. Just trying to assess which it is.

How are they saying that? They seem to be saying the exact opposite of that.

"God doesn't exist" isn't a worldview. It's a statement of belief in God. Full stop.

It can lead to various worldviews, just as a positive statement of belief in God can lead to worldviews, but that doesn't make theism a worldview. It serves as a basis to lead to various theistic worldviews, but isn't one in and of itself.

Ok…..you are not debating the philosophy here you are debating the grammar. We can call worldviews atheistic but can’t call atheism a worldview. Is that right?
It a noun vs. adjective thing.
Then shouldn’t any poll purporting what people believe more accurately list epistemological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, scientism, communism and secular humanism as denominations of atheism. Just wondering?

 

[remez]

Actually it is more than just a "psychological state of mind". It is more a conclusion reached after a lot of research.

And is your conclusion about reality to be considered a worldview? Or not?

Most atheists seem to know more about religions than the believers in those religions.

I do not deny that many Christians are weak when it comes to defending their worldview. But to claim the most atheists know more about theology is challengeable. Dawkins continually defeats a strawgod. Hawkins uses philosophy to defend philosophy is dead and then journeys on to base his whole book on the premise the since gravity exits then the universe can create itself out of nothing. God not needed. Really?

My grandfather was a minister so I grew up in the church and begin trying to understand the self-contradictions in the religion at about the age of twelve. Finding that the self-contradictions were indeed exactly that,

Others have studied the same and reached a different conclusion. Perhaps they understood the theology better than you did. You offer nothing more than vague personal experience here, so how is one to determine that your understanding is correct.

I finally began trying to make sense of the concept of a god and could find no sense or reason in the concept.

Ditto here in regards to purporting personal experience as evidence that the concept of god makes no sense. But I’ll admit many Christians attempt to do the same with their worldview and I find it embarrassing.

 

[remez]

No. The match is metaphor. It is the power that a small amount of reasoning and evidence can have over poor reasoning and no evidence. If you want to look at it as non-destructive, then I'll extend the metaphor.

Please look back at my post. I was trying to establish that atheism is more than a simple “lack of belief” It is a worldview of its own. Many here deny that. I was using your post as support that atheism is more than simply a “lack of belief” that’s all. Your match rightfully indicated a worldview opposing theism.

It is the power that a small amount of reasoning and evidence can have over poor reasoning and no evidence.

Which atheistic worldview leads you to that subjective conclusion?

 

[remez]

I got it. You were mocking peoples beliefs about the worldview of atheism.

You bet, if you don't want mockery, why don't you bring out some evidence?

Perhaps you missed my point. I was not challenging your vague mockery. I was attempting to show that even atheists proclaim that atheism is a worldview. Thank you for your support.

 

[bilby]

You bet, if you don't want mockery, why don't you bring out some evidence?

Perhaps you missed my point. I was not challenging your vague mockery. I was attempting to show that even atheists proclaim that atheism is a worldview. Thank you for your support.

Atheism isn't a worldview any more than theism is a religion.

Atheism and theism are both categories into which any of millions of worldviews can be placed; the criterion for determining into which category a particular worldview falls is 'does this include belief in at least one God'.

Atheists are not a homogeneous group any more than theists are; in both cases, they need share nothing in common other than God belief (or its absence).

In the same way, people can be classed as 'sportsmen' or 'non-sportsmen'. Anon-sportsman doesn't play football, but that doesn't define his life, anymore than does the fact that he doesn't play basketball.

A Christian is a theist, but he need not share any beliefs with a Hindu, other than that 'God' is a word that he believes describes a non-fictional entity.

 

[skepticalbip]

And is your conclusion about reality to be considered a worldview? Or not?

Certainly not a worldview. It was a conclusion about one specific item in a universe of ideas, beliefs, understandings, etc. sorta like I have concluded that fishing is better on neap tides than on flood tides - which is also not a worldview but only another specific item... but a more meaningful item to me than arguments over whether or not gods exist.

Most atheists seem to know more about religions than the believers in those religions.

I do not deny that many Christians are weak when it comes to defending their worldview. But to claim the most atheists know more about theology is challengeable. Dawkins continually defeats a strawgod. Hawkins uses philosophy to defend philosophy is dead and then journeys on to base his whole book on the premise the since gravity exits then the universe can create itself out of nothing. God not needed. Really?

I was referencing the average atheist (who generally has read religions for understanding) and average theists (who generally accepts whatever their minister tells them as truth ignoring that it contradicts other lessons given), not people who make their living worrying about such shit.

My grandfather was a minister so I grew up in the church and begin trying to understand the self-contradictions in the religion at about the age of twelve. Finding that the self-contradictions were indeed exactly that,

Others have studied the same and reached a different conclusion. Perhaps they understood the theology better than you did. You offer nothing more than vague personal experience here, so how is one to determine that your understanding is correct.

WTF? I am not attempting to either prove the existence of a god or the impossible of offering a proof of a negative. People reach different conclusions. My conclusion was based on finding the teachings were self-contradictory and based on nothing but arbitrary acceptance of anonymous authorities. Those who reach different conclusions base their conclusions on faith. Here I feel compelled to add a quip from one of my favorite wits, Mark Twain... "Faith is believing something you know ain't so."

I finally began trying to make sense of the concept of a god and could find no sense or reason in the concept.

Ditto here in regards to purporting personal experience as evidence that the concept of god makes no sense. But I’ll admit many Christians attempt to do the same with their worldview and I find it embarrassing.

Ditto.


ETA:
I have been trying to figure out why your insistence that atheism is a worldview when it has been repeatedly explained to you that it isn't. No belief in a god is no different than no belief in unicorns. The lack of belief in either is not something on which to base one's understanding of the universe. I think I have hit on your mindset. You apparently are so involved in your faith that it is the dominate influence of your daily thoughts. You can't even imagine anyone who doesn't obsess over a god whether it be the belief in that god or an obsession of denying that god. That is your cross to bear. I can assure you that the thought of gods (or denial of gods) does not enter my mind unless someone brings the subject up. I also don't think of unicorns unless something comes up like trying to think of something for a comparison of things I don't believe in.

Although I accept that there are people who believe in gods and there are people who believe in unicorns... a few who believe in both.

 

[remez]

Perhaps you missed my point. I was not challenging your vague mockery. I was attempting to show that even atheists proclaim that atheism is a worldview. Thank you for your support.

Atheism isn't a worldview any more than theism is a religion.

Atheism and theism are both categories into which any of millions of worldviews can be placed; the criterion for determining into which category a particular worldview falls is 'does this include belief in at least one God'.

Atheists are not a homogeneous group any more than theists are; in both cases, they need share nothing in common other than God belief (or its absence).

In the same way, people can be classed as 'sportsmen' or 'non-sportsmen'. Anon-sportsman doesn't play football, but that doesn't define his life, anymore than does the fact that he doesn't play basketball.

A Christian is a theist, but he need not share any beliefs with a Hindu, other than that 'God' is a word that he believes describes a non-fictional entity.

Again your correction here is with the grammar not the philosophy. I acknowledged this notion back in post 23.

And then again there are those that do refer to the “category” of atheism as a worldview and others who do not. So when I, a theist, come in here to discuss issues, I have to sense out where you all are coming from. So when you are correcting me to such an error, why not address the poster I was conversing with for claiming it was a worldview.

Shouldn’t future belief polls dissect atheisism into its proper denominations as well? It would really be interesting to see the how many of you side with metaphysical vs epistemological naturalism, etc. How many would even know what it meant?
Wait let me back up. What are the common denominations of atheism?

 

[remez]

I was referencing the average atheist (who generally has read religions for understanding) and average theists (who generally accepts whatever their minister tells them as truth ignoring that it contradicts other lessons given), not people who make their living worrying about such shit.

Were you an average theist surrounded by only average theists when you reached your conclusions about all these self-contradictions?
further…. Congregants often disagree with the sermons theology.
Sounds like your church was below average.

WTF? I am not attempting to either prove the existence of a god or the impossible of offering a proof of a negative. People reach different conclusions. My conclusion was based on finding the teachings were self-contradictory and based on nothing but arbitrary acceptance of anonymous authorities. Those who reach different conclusions base their conclusions on faith

That was my point of objection. Your superior understanding of faith suggests faith is devoid of reason?
Evidenced………….

Here I feel compelled to add a quip from one of my favorite wits, Mark Twain... "Faith is believing something you know ain't so."

Cute, but I simply cannot bring myself to trust something I know ain’t so? Epistemic suicide.

I have been trying to figure out why your insistence that atheism is a worldview when it has been repeatedly explained to you that it isn't.

I have addressed the grammatical counter. I was attempting to challenge those who deny it’s a worldview to avoid a burden of proof, a philosophical issue. Many here do not espouse this route. The grammatical counter does nothing to lift the burden of proof it only serves to indicate that I need to explore further as to which kind of atheistic worldview they need to defend.

But then there are those who fit neither of those two narratives. Some here actually do purport that atheism is a worldview. Why haven’t you challenged them if they are so wrong?

No belief in a god is no different than no belief in unicorns.

Belief in unicorns does not address worldview realities. Belief or nonbelief in God certainly does. This unicorn, nessy, flying spaghetti monster bologna is juvenile and annoying.

I think I have hit on your mindset. You apparently are so involved in your faith that it is the dominate influence of your daily thoughts. You can't even imagine anyone who doesn't obsess over a god whether it be the belief in that god or an obsession of denying that god. That is your cross to bear

Mindset?

-Epistemic duty.

-The challenge to discuss my worldview with the opposition. These opportunities enhance my epistemic pursuit. You’re not suggesting that I be an average churchgoer are you?

-To counter the gross fallacies presented against my worldview.

-I’m a sports nut. Meaning I play not only spectate. I live my life to engage with the same passion in every aspect.

That is more my mindset, just off the tip of my mind of course. Or is it brain?

 

[dystopian]

I have addressed the grammatical counter. I was attempting to challenge those who deny it’s a worldview to avoid a burden of proof, a philosophical issue. Many here do not espouse this route. The grammatical counter does nothing to lift the burden of proof it only serves to indicate that I need to explore further as to which kind of atheistic worldview they need to defend.

What burden of proof? The burden of proof only applies to people who make positive claims. Even if we were to accept the idea that atheism is a worldview, then we'd still be left with the fact that atheists do not make positive claims. The person who claims something to exist/be true, is the one who has the burden of proof; not the person who does not believe him. I am under no more of an obligation to prove that god does not exist then you are under the obligation to prove that I didn't invent a timemachine.

 

[skepticalbip]

Were you an average theist surrounded by only average theists when you reached your conclusions about all these self-contradictions?
further…. Congregants often disagree with the sermons theology.
Sounds like your church was below average.

I would assume that I was an average theist with the possible exception that I wanted to actually understand rather than just accept so I asked questions. As I recall (it's been quite a while) the first point I didn't understand was the trinity. When I asked for an explanation of exactly what that meant, there was little offered to clarify. The others in the bible study class however nodded and accepted that was the way it was but I made my way to the library for a little research.

WTF? I am not attempting to either prove the existence of a god or the impossible of offering a proof of a negative. People reach different conclusions. My conclusion was based on finding the teachings were self-contradictory and based on nothing but arbitrary acceptance of anonymous authorities. Those who reach different conclusions base their conclusions on faith

That was my point of objection. Your superior understanding of faith suggests faith is devoid of reason?
Evidenced………….

Maybe you need to look up the meanings of "faith" and "reason".
Faith can be acceptance without evidence. The first requirement for Christian faith is acceptance of the Bible as authoritive even though no one knows who wrote anything in it, faith that those anonymous writers were "inspired by god", that the council who compiled it (discarding writings that didn't support their particular position) were also "inspired" rather than politically motivated, etc.

Reason based on articles of faith rather than the verifiable is not actually reason but a logical extension of faith.

Here I feel compelled to add a quip from one of my favorite wits, Mark Twain... "Faith is believing something you know ain't so."

Cute, but I simply cannot bring myself to trust something I know ain’t so? Epistemic suicide.

I have been trying to figure out why your insistence that atheism is a worldview when it has been repeatedly explained to you that it isn't.

But then there are those who fit neither of those two narratives. Some here actually do purport that atheism is a worldview. Why haven’t you challenged them if they are so wrong?

For those specific people, they may take it as their mission to confront religion so it could be part of their worldview. However, they are not trying to tell me what I believe (or don't believe) as those who make sweeping assertions about atheism. Correcting everyone who misuses a term is not my onus.

No belief in a god is no different than no belief in unicorns.

Belief in unicorns does not address worldview realities. Belief or nonbelief in God certainly does. This unicorn, nessy, flying spaghetti monster bologna is juvenile and annoying.

I can understand that you find it annoying. Such comparisons are generally given to illustrate that, to an atheist, talking about gods is pretty much like talking about pixies because atheists see both as fictional creations. Atheists generally find it annoying to be challenged by theists to defend a position that they don't hold, just a position the the theist wrongly assigns to them.

It would be refreshing to have a theist ask questions about atheism without adding their attacks on strawmen about atheists, expecting the atheist to defend those strawmen.

I think I have hit on your mindset. You apparently are so involved in your faith that it is the dominate influence of your daily thoughts. You can't even imagine anyone who doesn't obsess over a god whether it be the belief in that god or an obsession of denying that god. That is your cross to bear

-To counter the gross fallacies presented against my worldview.

-I’m a sports nut. Meaning I play not only spectate. I live my life to engage with the same passion in every aspect.

That is more my mindset, just off the tip of my mind of course. Or is it brain?

Are you one of those sports nuts who attribute scoring and/or victories to the mercy of god? If so have you ever wondered why god doesn't like the opposing team?

 

[bilby]

Atheism isn't a worldview any more than theism is a religion.

Atheism and theism are both categories into which any of millions of worldviews can be placed; the criterion for determining into which category a particular worldview falls is 'does this include belief in at least one God'.

Atheists are not a homogeneous group any more than theists are; in both cases, they need share nothing in common other than God belief (or its absence).

In the same way, people can be classed as 'sportsmen' or 'non-sportsmen'. Anon-sportsman doesn't play football, but that doesn't define his life, anymore than does the fact that he doesn't play basketball.

A Christian is a theist, but he need not share any beliefs with a Hindu, other than that 'God' is a word that he believes describes a non-fictional entity.

Again your correction here is with the grammar not the philosophy. I acknowledged this notion back in post 23.

And then again there are those that do refer to the “category” of atheism as a worldview and others who do not. So when I, a theist, come in here to discuss issues, I have to sense out where you all are coming from. So when you are correcting me to such an error, why not address the poster I was conversing with for claiming it was a worldview.

Shouldn’t future belief polls dissect atheisism into its proper denominations as well? It would really be interesting to see the how many of you side with metaphysical vs epistemological naturalism, etc. How many would even know what it meant?
Wait let me back up. What are the common denominations of atheism?

There are few common denominations; most atheists are unaffiliated - it is practically a cliche that atheists are impossible to organise.

Humanism is a (largely) atheist denomination, but very few atheists are active Humanists.

The reason that you get mostly what you are calling corrections "with the grammar not the philosophy" is that there is no homogeneous philosophy of atheism to discuss. You seem to be having trouble grasping this fact.

A class of worldviews based around a positive belief - 'a God exists' - will all necessarily share some commonalities. For such a belief to survive, in the absence of supporting evidence, requires a certain number of believers to support each other, and to instruct new believers (either children, or converts, or both) in the details of the belief, and the rituals that go along with it. The belief that a God has prescribed 'correct' behaviour, belief, and ritual, leads to a clear need for the community to prohibit divergence from the 'true' path, so for a schism to occur requires the formulation of a revised doctrine, and for it to survive, it requires a certain minimum level of support.

A class of worldviews based around an absence of belief has no constraints (this is the source of the term 'freethought'). Rituals and structure could be developed and communicated (as with Humanism); but this is not essential, disagreements about the details are of little import, and nobody feels any great need to discourage such divergence. If a Humanist decides that he no longer agrees with the principles of the Humanist movement, the Humanists don't really care - it's not like he is risking his immortal soul, or threatening to bring the wrath of God upon the world.

In my experience (and this is purely my gut feeling), most people who go to Humanist meetings, and take an active part in Humanist rituals such as weddings and funerals, are ex-theists, who have been conditioned to ritualistic behaviours in their former religions; while people like myself, who have never been religious, don't care for the rituals or the social side of things - we don't feel the need to seek out other non-believers in God, but instead socialise with people who share our secular interests (which can be anything from abseiling to zither playing).

 

[remez]

What burden of proof? The burden of proof only applies to people who make positive claims. Even if we were to accept the idea that atheism is a worldview, then we'd still be left with the fact that atheists do not make positive claims.

Ok
What better explains reality: atheism or theism?

 

[remez]

As I recall (it's been quite a while) the first point I didn't understand was the trinity. When I asked for an explanation of exactly what that meant, there was little offered to clarify.

So what is the self-contradiction and what was offered to clarify? By now you know it better than a theist.

Faith can be acceptance without evidence.

Can be, but rarely is.

The first requirement for Christian faith is acceptance of the Bible as authoritive

“First” not so sure about that.
“acceptance” yes. But what reasons are there to accept or reject. You didn’t just blindly reject it as many who don’t blindly accept it. Reason guided your conclusion. Do only atheists reason?

even though no one knows who wrote anything in it, faith that those anonymous writers were "inspired by god", that the council who compiled it (discarding writings that didn't support their particular position) were also "inspired" rather than politically motivated, etc.

These are your reasons for rejecting it? Your representation of the council is woefully incomplete. If that was the way it went down then go with Dan Brown. Most theists would not accept this strawman scenario of the council.

Reason based on articles of faith rather than the verifiable is not actually reason but a logical extension of faith.

Not following you here. Please clarify.

I can understand that you find it annoying. Such comparisons are generally given to illustrate that, to an atheist, talking about gods is pretty much like talking about pixies because atheists see both as fictional creations.

Got it. However. Just because the theist contests that the supernatural exists does not imply that all fictional creatures exist. That would be a categorical fallacy, hence my contention of annoyance. Our difference here depends on our reasons for accepting or rejecting the supernatural. Thus by espousing atheism you are positively espousing naturalism/materialism of some sort. True?

Atheists generally find it annoying to be challenged by theists to defend a position that they don't hold, just a position the the theist wrongly assigns to them.

As does your fictional character illustration for the theist.

It would be refreshing to have a theist ask questions about atheism without adding their attacks on strawmen about atheists, expecting the atheist to defend those strawmen.

What type of atheistic worldview do you espouse?
Materialism?

Are you one of those sports nuts who attribute scoring and/or victories to the mercy of god? If so have you ever wondered why god doesn't like the opposing team?

No and No.

 

[bilby]

What burden of proof? The burden of proof only applies to people who make positive claims. Even if we were to accept the idea that atheism is a worldview, then we'd still be left with the fact that atheists do not make positive claims.

Ok
What better explains reality: atheism or theism?

Given that there is zero reliable evidence of anything that could reasonably be called a God, atheism is the pool in which the best explanation will be found; but neither theism nor atheism are explanations of anything. They are categories each of which contains myriad hypotheses of varying quality.

 

[remez]

Thank you for your post. I have heard this before and do understand your sincerity. My challenge is here.

A class of worldviews based around a positive belief - 'a God exists' - will all necessarily share some commonalities.

Same with atheism. I’m not as concerned with the social side of your absence of rituals or communities. I’m interested in the philosophies you hold to espouse this……….

For such a belief to survive, in the absence of supporting evidence,

Materialism?
Naturalism?
Scientism?
These are not true by default?
So by what grounds do you espouse that theism has no supporting evidence?

 

[bilby]

Norse mythology explains reality; but not very well. It is a theist hypothesis.

Mormonism explains reality; also not very well. It too is a theist hypothesis.

Astrology explains reality; still not very well. It is an atheist hypothesis, because it doesn't include any Gods.

Quantum electrodynamics explains some aspects of reality, and does so very well indeed. It is an atheist hypothesis.

General Relativity explains some aspects of reality, also very well. It's atheist too.

The germ theory of disease is atheist; so is acupuncture, but only the former does a good job of explaining an aspect of reality.

The idea that either 'theism' or 'atheism' are sufficiently homogeneous as to be considered as a whole is deeply flawed.

Nobody thinks that an assessment of Roman Catholicism says anything about Sikhism, despite their both being theism. To treat atheism as a single position against which you can argue is to make the exact same error.

"Can the Pope be infallible, if he doesn't wear a turban" is not a sensible question; it is just a mistake.

Asking whether theism or atheism are the best explanations for something is also just a mistake.

You may as well ask what blue tastes of.

 

[OLDMAN]

Actually, we are the believers...they are the deniers. But the question isn't about god. It's about death. They do not believe in a final death and we do...all religions share this common bond. No real death. It is from this lack of belief in death that they derive comfort.

And yes, we can prove our beliefs that death exists.

 

[bilby]

Thank you for your post. I have heard this before and do understand your sincerity. My challenge is here.

Same with atheism. I’m not as concerned with the social side of your absence of rituals or communities. I’m interested in the philosophies you hold to espouse this……….

For such a belief to survive, in the absence of supporting evidence,

Materialism?
Naturalism?
Scientism?
These are not true by default?
So by what grounds do you espouse that theism has no supporting evidence?

You can't have support for an undefined position.

I don't know what a God is - I know of hundreds of contradictory definitions of 'God', and none of them are both falsifiable and compatible with observed reality.

Until you define your personal version of 'God', you may as well ask whether thingy is a good explanation of reality.