Atheism: A belief?

[Frank Merton]

Without spiritual life ahead.....
You are top of the line life form....and terminal.

Only maybe without life ahead, which might or might not be "spiritual." Almost certainly not top of the line -- it's a big universe out there.

And life has little meaning without the possibility of spiritual continuance.
Your stance ends...with you not standing.... at all.

Yea, what if life has no meaning? What if nothing has any meaning? Can you handle it? Can you find your own meaning, if that is what you just have to have?

Belief in something because you don't like the alternatives is air-headedness out its ear.

 

[Willamena]

I suppose I generally fit the definition of one of those too. I'm an atheist, agnostic, and igtheistic or ignostic. They don't seem mutually exclusive. I guess I would default to atheist because I see it as the most relevant and broadly correct in describing my view.

Right. Atheism is "the broader" of the two where it is "stretched" by your understanding of the ideas involved to encompass the other. For others, with their understanding of the ideas involved, it isn't.

Indeed, but for atheism itself to be meaningfully described as a belief, it would have to include a belief which applied to all atheists.

In my view, that would be incorrect. You and atheism are two separate, unique, individual entities. Atheism isn't the atheist, and the atheist isn't atheism, and there is nothing that requires them to share any belief --any belief. At all. Now, it's most often the case that a person will look at their understanding of the definition of atheism, compare it to their own beliefs, and if they find matches in a few places, and then acknowledge that some of their ideas conform to atheism. To say "I am the atheist" is simply to say "some of my ideas conform to atheism, as I see it defined."

Additionally, even if one came from the perspective that atheism was different beliefs, then you would have to be able to at least identify the beliefs specific to those different atheists which make them atheists.

That's reasonable, where the atheist identifies atheism with himself, but it's irrational to identify atheism with himself.

Atheism is undoubtedly a thing in the world, and as such it is defined in contrast to another thing that, for many, is defined specifically only about one particular belief. The definition of atheism that is held to be in a relationship of dependency on the other is also specifically about that same one particular belief --but that's just where you end up following logically the relationships of dependency, as Cottage did, as many do. The definition of atheism that is held to be "no capacity for belief" fails to hold itself in contrast to one particular belief. It fails to distinguish itself from theism.

And that's okay, except that there are monotheistic structures that acknowledge "g-d" as ineffable that also distinguish themselves with the capacity for belief. The ineffable, around which a proposition cannot be made, acknowledeges that there is nothing about god in which one can or should invest belief. That, of course, doesn't prevent them talking, singing, praying, writing long poems and scriptures, about the "image of god". That's what myth is for: to give a face to the faceless, a name to the nameless.

As there are atheists who hold no beliefs that make them atheists, it would be incorrect to say that atheism is a belief, as it wouldn't be true for all atheists.

It would also, in the view of many people, be incorrect to say that that is true for all atheists.

 

[Copernicus]

In my training however, the teacher has taught not to hold any belief -- at least on matters that do not matter. Cannot say however, that I have been successful yet.

I'm not sure that that is possible or desirable. What I think is important is coming to terms with the beliefs that you do have. It is a core observation of dharmic religions that reality is ephemeral and changing. So our beliefs about reality are always in a high state of flux. But that is not true of all beliefs. We also have very slow-changing beliefs--memories of the past, who our family and friends are, the location of home, things that we own, facts about the universe. Our language is another set of slow-changing beliefs about the names and categories of things. These core beliefs are anchors in our lives, and they can sometimes break up in terrifying ways when we sustain brain injuries or grow very old. Can we really give up our core beliefs or is it just that we learn to recognize them and allow for change? We give up most beliefs freely and easily, just not the slow-changing core.

In this thread we have been arguing over words, which are part of the core belief system. We all have different takes on what an "atheist" is, and that should be no surprise. If we were to compare beliefs about something more mundane--say what we mean by "bird", we would find some very interesting differences. There is a kind of core "birdiness"--feathers, flying, beaks, clawed feet, wings, etc., but not all birds have these features in the same degree. And we all picture the "core" bird differently because we all have different concrete experiences to link the word to. If you grow up around emus and ostriches, maybe the ability to fly is not such a core property of birds. Having two wings is, because otherwise we could not recognize that an individual bird has a "missing wing", but some land birds have no visible wings. They are missing both of them.

Atheism. gods, theists, and atheists are no different in that respect. There are core meanings to all these words, but there is also a shell of less core properties that we associate with them. What makes it important to debate the meanings of words is that language is the principal means of communication that we have with each other. So sometimes these debates can be lengthy, tedious, and emotional. Are they worth it? That depends on what gives value to you.

 

[Willamena]

Basically, IMO, every Atheist has a belief in what God/Deity is/are and is rationally/consciously opposed to the idea of possibilty of that God being the controller/creator of his/her life.

Shared disbelief of an existence of a Personal God, believed by all theists commonly, is the commonality among all atheists.

Apples are of varying taste and size, some are red and some are green, yet there is a shared underlying theme of what consitutes an apple. It may be called appleness. Associated with the word 'appleness' there is a shared meaning in consciousness. The general underlying commonality is unborn ever -- called Brahman of the situation. What is/are born is/are instance/s. All instances have uniqueness in particulars.

You started out well but fell apart at the end, Atanu. Pantheists and deists are still theists, as are religious taoists, wiccans and other polytheists. Belief in a "personal god" is not a prerequisite for theism, and rejection of that particular god concept is not a prerequisite for atheism.

I believe he's saying that holding "a particular god concept" is holding "a personal god" (as opposed to godness, which isn't "concept"). Even if we mentally rob an apple of all its properties, it still retains thingness from which to address "it".

We have each, atheist and theist, personally made (gave birth to) the concept (the image) with our understanding of the ideas involved --and that's what is determined by the atheist to be held by the theist, and that's what is rejected by the atheist. An extraeneous thing.

The other, the unborn ness, we have no choice to hold or not hold.

 

[Alceste]

You got it man -- er sorry woman. But go deep again. Universe is an INSTANCE OR NOT?
...

Heh - it is not so deep to acknowledge that the universe exists.

I don't understand the question. An instance of what, for instance?

 

[Alceste]

I believe he's saying that holding "a particular god concept" is holding "a personal god" (as opposed to godness, which isn't "concept"). Even if we mentally rob an apple of all its properties, it still retains thingness from which to address "it".

We have each, atheist and theist, personally made (gave birth to) the concept (the image) with our understanding of the ideas involved --and that's what is determined by the atheist to be held by the theist, and that's what is rejected by the atheist. An extraeneous thing.

The other, the unborn ness, we have no choice to hold or not hold.

The problem with the "thing-ness" of my "personal god" (or my subjective definition of the proper noun "God") is that non-existence is an inherent property of it and there is no apparent objective "god-ness" with which I can compare it. If I ask people whose personal definition of "God" includes existence what they mean by it, every single one of them has a completely different answer. That's six billion different subjective definitions of "God" and counting, none of them with a scrap of objective "god-ness" with which to assess the accuracy of their definitions.

 

[Willamena]

The problem with the "thing-ness" of my "personal god" (or my subjective definition of the proper noun "God") is that non-existence is an inherent property of it and there is no apparent objective "god-ness" with which I can compare it. If I ask people whose personal definition of "God" includes existence what they mean by it, every single one of them has a completely different answer. That's six billion different subjective definitions of "God" and counting, none of them with a scrap of objective "god-ness" with which to assess the accuracy of their definitions.

And that's fine. But similarly, that also represents a problem for defining atheism in terms of holding no belief in (what?).

 

[Orias]

This is an exceptionally long thread, and I am not going to read all the responses. If I am duplicating someone else's answer: sorry.

Atheists I have known, with help from theists who haven't thought the matter through very well, regard knowledge and belief as two different things, to wit: that belief is acceptance of a proposition without sufficient evidence. As I think you have recognized, this distinction is specious. "Sufficiency" is in the eye of the beholder, and no one truly "knows" anything rationally. Reason is founded upon the subject-object dichotomy; it requires a discontinuity between that which thinks and that which is thought about. This discontinuity is, of necessity, an infinite gulf that reason is incapable of crossing -- because, if it ever *did* cross it, it would self-destruct, being unable to function. Therefore, all so-called "knowledge" is necessarily founded on limited evidence, and requires a "leap of faith."

Of course, the world is built off of self evident axioms. Each label has an achieved definition, thus causing inconsistencies in man's labels.

Opposition does indeed allow vital existences.

For better understanding of how "beliefs" achieve the status of "fact," take a look at a jury sometime. Juries in the U.S. have the job of determining the facts of a case. Evidence is presented to them, and they decide what is. How? Obviously, the legal system does not consider facts to be "self-evident," or juries would not be needed. So, how do they do it? How, indeed. They do it by deciding from the evidence what seems reasonable and what doesn't. Do you see how that begs the question? Yet the most exacting laboratory scientist does precisely the same thing. His tools may be refined, but the process rests on a foundation that is no more secure than that of a jury.

Reminds me of the Maglica vs. Maglica court case video we watched in Business and Law.

Horrible decisions are made, based off of formal sanctions. Though I do realize this is not the case a majority of the time.

I submit to you that "faith" is not what most atheists, and no few theists, think of it as being. It is pointless to think of "faith" as subscribing to a proposition without sufficient evidence, because there is no objective standard of sufficiency. I find it much more helpful to look at it from a functional point of view, i.e., how does it work? From this perspective, "faith" consists of exercising trust in someone or something. Simply getting out of bed in the morning requires an exercise of trust -- that the floor will be there when you stand up, that your legs won't break beneath you when you put your weight on them, that there's a point to getting out of bed, etc. These are exercises of trust that you find convenient to make, but they aren't forced upon you by reality.

Exactly, "faith" is commonly argued against as being unreasonable, yet it is often directed in a way that completely negates the meaning of the word. Most people have a "certain" path that they follow, and under the circumstances of taking a label unto oneself they take the burden of it's Opposite unto them.

"Faith" does not involve supernatural beings, or God, or a strict worship in a set of tenets, merely just a "trust" in something.

Every action and inaction constitutes an act of trust. The man who prays to God exercises trust in his existence, his nature, etc.; and the man who says that there is no God exercises trust that no God exists, going about his day without acknowledging him or regarding the idea of him as relevant. This is the common belief of atheism: the act of trust in the non-existence of God. Both the weak atheist ("I don't believe there is") and the strong atheist ("I believe there isn't") make this act of trust.

Hope this helps.

Who would of thought a straight foward post would of ever show up here?

Great post :clap

 

[Willamena]

This discontinuity is, of necessity, an infinite gulf...

It's really not so big as you might think.

 

[Alceste]

And that's fine. But similarly, that also represents a problem for defining atheism in terms of holding no belief in (what?).

In the existence of a deity or deities, of course. The specific definition is not important when the belief is absent. Any dictionary will do.

 

[Copernicus]

In the existence of a deity or deities, of course. The specific definition is not important when the belief is absent. Any dictionary will do.

And that renders the word "atheism" essentially meaningless and all discussions about it pointless.

 

[Tom Terrific]

It's really not so big as you might think.

Now I'm intrigued.

 

[Alceste]

And that renders the word "atheism" essentially meaningless and all discussions about it pointless.

I agree, discussions about atheism are as pointless as discussions of abigfootism, and atheism is almost as meaningless a label as ageocentrism.

That is not to say the word "atheism" can not be defined ("without theism"). Only that the word can only be a meaningful distinction as long as the majority of humans subscribe to theism. If 90% of us believed in fairies, for example, afairyism would mean something.

 

[Willamena]

In the existence of a deity or deities, of course. The specific definition is not important when the belief is absent. Any dictionary will do.

True: it's only important if we want to actually define it.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree, discussions about atheism are as pointless as discussions of abigfootism, and atheism is almost as meaningless a label as ageocentrism.

That is not to say the word "atheism" can not be defined ("without theism"). Only that the word can only be a meaningful distinction as long as the majority of humans subscribe to theism. If 90% of us believed in fairies, for example, afairyism would mean something.

But you have participated in this thread with as much gusto as any of us. Your actions suggest that you see a point to the definition, the label, and the defense of a definition.

 

[Alceste]

But you have participated in this thread with as much gusto as any of us. Your actions suggest that you see a point to the definition, the label, and the defense of a definition.

I'm just killing time. I don't define myself as an "Atheist" or go around with a scarlet A on my blog, and I don't badger and look down on religious people for simply believing in a higher power, but I do in fact own a dictionary and it is a fact that I meet one of the definitions of the word "atheist" - and judging by the members here, the most common one. I do think bigotry against atheists is a serious social problem, though, and so I am mildly interested in disputing opinions that promote bigotry against atheists. IMO, the opinion that "atheists" are some kind of allied sect of believers who have anything meaningful in common with one another, or some kind of united agenda, is one of those opinions.

That said, I do realize that some atheists yearn for the comfort that only comes from belonging to a tribe of some kind with shared values, beliefs and objectives. If they want to form groups and discuss about what atheism means, email minutes around, give lectures, write books and campaign against superstition in all its guises, power to them. It is just that from my perspective, they are not actually talking about anything except their shared mistrust of the irrational.

 

[Thief]

Only maybe without life ahead, which might or might not be "spiritual." Almost certainly not top of the line -- it's a big universe out there.
Yea, what if life has no meaning? What if nothing has any meaning? Can you handle it? Can you find your own meaning, if that is what you just have to have?

So you cherry pick the only part of my post you can handle?
and not very well....

Belief in something because you don't like the alternatives is air-headedness out its ear.

Airhead?....really?
Retort without conviction?...really.

Look who's talking.

Not believing in God is one thing.
Not believing in life after death is another.
But you can't have one without the other.

Start another thread about your idea...the meaning of life....

We have several already on the run.
See you there.

 

[Frank Merton]

Airhead?....really?
Retort without conviction?...really.

Yea, your anger at me for that is righteous. I should have known better.

Not believing in God is one thing.
Not believing in life after death is another.
But you can't have one without the other.

Millions of Buddhists would disagree with that. "Samsara" is the teaching that one is naturally reborn in an unending natural cycle, with no God involved at all. It is a rational enough idea born from the insight that mind is not a thing but a flow (the etymology of "samsara" is "to flow on.")

 

[Thief]

Yea, your anger at me for that is righteous. I should have known better.

You have assumed too much...and don't know better.

Millions of Buddhists would disagree with that. "Samsara" is the teaching that one is naturally reborn in an unending natural cycle, with no God involved at all. It is a rational enough idea born from the insight that mind is not a thing but a flow (the etymology of "samsara" is "to flow on.")

All 'flow' has a beginning.

God did it.

 

[Frank Merton]

All 'flow' has a beginning.

God did it.

And you say I assume too much!