Is atheism a relic of modernism?

[steve_bank]

This is kind of complicated, but it seems like that the Abrahamic religions got halfway there by killing the infusion of spirit (sort of like Japanese Kami) into the natural world - or at least having independent spirits in different aspects of nature.

Is an atheist coming from an Abrahamic religious background different from an atheist raised in a religion that has hints of Animism?

From an old thread on agnosticism there is a range of shades of atheist.

One can be atheist and believe in a cosmic spirit or ghosts. One can be atheist and believe in animism I suppose.

Bare bones atheism is the simple rejection of gods. That is where I am. I am also a naturalist or freethinker. There can be no supernatural. Whatever exists and manifests in our reality is by definition natural.

 

[Politesse]

This is kind of complicated, but it seems like that the Abrahamic religions got halfway there by killing the infusion of spirit (sort of like Japanese Kami) into the natural world - or at least having independent spirits in different aspects of nature.

Is an atheist coming from an Abrahamic religious background different from an atheist raised in a religion that has hints of Animism?

Japan has an atheist majority, so it is said. A natural case study?

- - - Updated - - -

Speak for yourself! I'm a question-asking kind of guy.

It is what it is is. Sconce does not answer why thing snare as they are in terms of a cosmic reason why. It bios models to explain observation and extrapolate based on experiment and observation. Why the universe exists is not within the pursue of science. That is philosophy and religion. If you really understand science there is no conflict between science and religion.

Science makes some theists uncomfortable, but that is not the problem of science to reconcile.

The trick and key to understanding is being able to question yourself. Why do I believe in a god allegedly of love who killed off almost all of humanity in a flood out of displeasure?

I'm not afraid of those questions either. I am in the business of questions.

And well aware that the question I have posed is not a scientific one, though it concerns science in some ways.

 

[Sarpedon]

Here's an example of atheist who disdains Postmodernism.

This argument is purely a semantic one and can be dismissed as such. However, thanks to this site, I know of a number of atheists who have adopted Postmodernism's fascination with semantics.

Just because many of the classic writings to do with a movement are written during a particular period, does not mean that the movement dies when the era passes. Anyone with any knowledge of history will know this; Christianity was not discarded with the fall of the Roman Empire, and Judaism did not expire with the bronze age. It is insulting, and I must note, trivial, for you to engage in such petty and obviously hypocritical arguments.

Just because making decisions based on fact and evidence is out of fashion these days does not mean that it is invalid. Having failed to come up with any evidence to support your position or disprove ours, you are again playing a semantic game of trying to define us out of existence.

 

[steve_bank]

Here's an example of atheist who disdains Postmodernism.

This argument is purely a semantic one and can be dismissed as such. However, thanks to this site, I know of a number of atheists who have adopted Postmodernism's fascination with semantics.

Just because many of the classic writings to do with a movement are written during a particular period, does not mean that the movement dies when the era passes. Anyone with any knowledge of history will know this; Christianity was not discarded with the fall of the Roman Empire, and Judaism did not expire with the bronze age. It is insulting, and I must note, trivial, for you to engage in such petty and obviously hypocritical arguments.

Just because making decisions based on fact and evidence is out of fashion these days does not mean that it is invalid. Having failed to come up with any evidence to support your position or disprove ours, you are again playing a semantic game of trying to define us out of existence.

Atheist is one thing. Atheists who have different philosophies and beliefs are another. What is the point of saying some atheism are xxxisms...

I had a thread on post modern vs analytic

To me the rejection altogether of the supernatural would be more analytic, investigation of reality comes from science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

 

[Lion IRC]

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Atheists came first. Every child is born without theism. Until theism was invented, all were atheists.

Without theism there is no atheism. Period. Atheism is a reaction to theism.

Nonsense. Without theism, everyone is atheist by definition.

I think the numinous belief that some entity 'did it' predates the much more recent idea that nobody dit it - that 'IT' has always existed or caused ITself.

 

[Politesse]

Here's an example of atheist who disdains Postmodernism.

This argument is purely a semantic one and can be dismissed as such. However, thanks to this site, I know of a number of atheists who have adopted Postmodernism's fascination with semantics.

Just because many of the classic writings to do with a movement are written during a particular period, does not mean that the movement dies when the era passes. Anyone with any knowledge of history will know this; Christianity was not discarded with the fall of the Roman Empire, and Judaism did not expire with the bronze age. It is insulting, and I must note, trivial, for you to engage in such petty and obviously hypocritical arguments.

Just because making decisions based on fact and evidence is out of fashion these days does not mean that it is invalid. Having failed to come up with any evidence to support your position or disprove ours, you are again playing a semantic game of trying to define us out of existence.

I hope you do not think I meant to disdain anything that is not hip and new. I have a good deal of respect for ancient wisdom, as you rightly point out. As for the modern period in science and philosophy, I would hardly have a job if it were not relevant in a continuing way.

 

[Wiploc]

Atheists came first. Every child is born without theism. Until theism was invented, all were atheists.






Nonsense. Without theism, everyone is atheist by definition.

I think the numinous belief that some entity 'did it' predates the much more recent idea that nobody dit it - that 'IT' has always existed or caused ITself.

I agree that magical thinking predated theism, and that it's been with us a long while. That doesn't mean that such thinking predated the lack of such thinking.

It also doesn't mean that people who believe in numinous agents believe in gods. Many atheists believe in ghosts, fairies, reincarnation, and such. In most people's minds, most numinous agents aren't gods.

The absence of theism came before the presence of theism.

 

[steve_bank]

Here's an example of atheist who disdains Postmodernism.

This argument is purely a semantic one and can be dismissed as such. However, thanks to this site, I know of a number of atheists who have adopted Postmodernism's fascination with semantics.

Just because many of the classic writings to do with a movement are written during a particular period, does not mean that the movement dies when the era passes. Anyone with any knowledge of history will know this; Christianity was not discarded with the fall of the Roman Empire, and Judaism did not expire with the bronze age. It is insulting, and I must note, trivial, for you to engage in such petty and obviously hypocritical arguments.

Just because making decisions based on fact and evidence is out of fashion these days does not mean that it is invalid. Having failed to come up with any evidence to support your position or disprove ours, you are again playing a semantic game of trying to define us out of existence.

I hope you do not think I meant to disdain anything that is not hip and new. I have a good deal of respect for ancient wisdom, as you rightly point out. As for the modern period in science and philosophy, I would hardly have a job if it were not relevant in a continuing way.

Don't know the current culture words, I believe hip is a bit out of the times....

 

[steve_bank]

From the link one aspect of post modernism is rejection of absolute morality. The theists generally claim without an absolute moral authority from god expressed in the bible atheists are free to do anything without a moral conscious.

Atheist equates to no restraint on behavior.

 

[Politesse]

Here's an example of atheist who disdains Postmodernism.

This argument is purely a semantic one and can be dismissed as such. However, thanks to this site, I know of a number of atheists who have adopted Postmodernism's fascination with semantics.

Just because many of the classic writings to do with a movement are written during a particular period, does not mean that the movement dies when the era passes. Anyone with any knowledge of history will know this; Christianity was not discarded with the fall of the Roman Empire, and Judaism did not expire with the bronze age. It is insulting, and I must note, trivial, for you to engage in such petty and obviously hypocritical arguments.

Just because making decisions based on fact and evidence is out of fashion these days does not mean that it is invalid. Having failed to come up with any evidence to support your position or disprove ours, you are again playing a semantic game of trying to define us out of existence.

I hope you do not think I meant to disdain anything that is not hip and new. I have a good deal of respect for ancient wisdom, as you rightly point out. As for the modern period in science and philosophy, I would hardly have a job if it were not relevant in a continuing way.

Don't know the current culture words, I believe hip is a bit out of the times....

on fleek

or woke

 

[Tom Sawyer]

on fleek

or woke

Oh my god, Politesse. Stop trying to make fleek happen.

 

[Sarpedon]

Moral absolutism has been up for debate at least since Socrates. To claim that it is a postmodern idea is not correct. The postmodernists might have embraced it, but people have been debating these things for a while.

I've always associated postmodernism with semiotics. A rejection of empiricism in favor of a system of understanding based on symbols, and with them, words. While semiotics is a field worth studying, and the postmodern criticism of epiricism based on the idea that one cannot dispassionately judge anything is more or less correct, it does not lead to fruitful ways of thinking. The flaw of empiricism relates to our ways of interpreting the world around it, but does not alter the fact that this world exists, and the best way to live in it is to produce the best attempt to understand it. Postmodernism can do nothing but critique our understanding, and in that respect, it can be a useful servant to empiricism. As a movement of its own, it is a failure.

 

[steve_bank]

Would Chomsky be an example of post modern?

 

[James Brown]

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Atheists came first. Every child is born without theism. Until theism was invented, all were atheists.

It could be considered a retronym. Like acoustic guitar and manual transmission.

 

[Wiploc]

Which came first the theist or the atheist?

Atheists came first. Every child is born without theism. Until theism was invented, all were atheists.

It could be considered a retronym. Like acoustic guitar and manual transmission.

Sure, I assume that the word "atheist" came after the word "theist." But the question is about the people, not about the words that characterize them. Atheists were here before theists.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's not correct to say we are all born atheist.
The tabula rasa does not default to a positive or negative view about the existence of God/gods.
We aren't born 'believing' that there's no God.

 

[abaddon]

I agree with Steve Bank and Lion IRC about the word atheist.

I think it's a mistake to treat it like it's descriptive of anything or any person outside the context of theism. You can say anything's atheist for not being a theist, but that's absurd because it's not descriptive outside the context.

There is no "ism" or "ology" that is the default of thoughtless minds or mindless things. Atheism is not a state to default to. It's not a thing in itself; it's a mistake to reify it into a state or a thing that one can "be". It's wholly relative to another state (of belief).

I wouldn't be an atheist if there weren't theists, and would be glad if that were the case. I don't wear the stupid label as a badge of identity. I use it strictly for saying "I don't believe in gods", which only makes sense to do when discussing theism.

 

[Wiploc]

It's not correct to say we are all born atheist.
The tabula rasa does not default to a positive or negative view about the existence of God/gods.
We aren't born 'believing' that there's no God.

Nor are we born believing that there are gods. So that puts babies in the middle, between the two kinds of believers.

What do we call those people in the middle? Some call them agnostics. That's awkward and confusing, but it isn't indefensible. Common usage and dictionaries support that usage, so it isn't exactly wrong.

But there's also another popular system of nomenclature. According to this usage, all non-theists are atheists. The atheists who believe gods don't exist are called strong atheists, and the atheists in the middle, the ones who don't believe either way, are called weak atheists.

This usage is also supported by common usage and dictionaries. So it can't be called wrong either. And it is overwhelmingly popular among those who identify as atheists. So, when you're talking to atheists, there's a presumption that "all non-theists" is what they mean by "atheists."

Further, it wouldn't make sense to claim that babies are born believing that gods don't exist. So, clearly, anyone claiming that babies are born atheist is using the all-non-theists definition of "atheists."

You wouldn't go to a website frequented by black people to claim something like, "You are not blacks. You are Browns." They get to decide how they want to think of themselves and what they want to be called.

Likewise, you wouldn't go to a male-to-female transexual website and insist, "You are not women; you are men." That would be the height of bad taste. They get to choose their own identities and labels. You may elect to think of them as men, but you wouldn't tell them that they should think of themselves as men.

So, unless this was an oops-I-didn't-understand-that moment, I think your post wasn't tactful. We atheists don't need a lecture on what our label means.

If you wanted to point out that you use the word differently than we do, so you don't call babies atheists, that would be fine. But that isn't how your post struck me. It seems to me that you were correcting us, straightening us out, telling us how we ought to describe ourselves.

That's not a move I recommend.

 

[Politesse]

This usage is also supported by common usage and dictionaries.

Dictionaries don't "support" common usage, they only report on it. If many printed sources imply a definition, dictionarians will report it as one of the potential definitions whether or not they agree with the "claim." That is their job. And since both your definition and the other poster's are generally included in any definition of atheism, I cannot see that the dictionary is taking a side at all. As well it should not.

 

[Wiploc]

This usage is also supported by common usage and dictionaries.

Dictionaries don't "support" common usage, they only report on it. If many printed sources imply a definition, dictionarians will report it as one of the potential definitions whether or not they agree with the "claim." That is their job.

a) You've overstated your case.

b) Nothing in the above conflicts with what I said.