Atheism does not exist

[ArtieE]

Faith is believing in something without evidence.

Science is a tool used to test, and give evidence.

Quite.

"Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason and evidence."

Faith and rationality

Simply put, if you believe something is true based on some inspired moment where you think God has personally revealed some truth to you, if you believe something is true because you believe God says so in a 2000 year old book you have faith. If on the other hand you believe something is true because you have used reason and evidence to arrive at that conclusion you are a rational person not a religious person.

 

[Willamena]

atheism as far as i can tell when it comes to "tenets" and "doctrine" is an empirical philosophy.....

It kind of is, but a philosophy isn't required to disbelieve. All that's required is a contrary worldview.

 

[zaybu]

I don't think so.


Noun

• Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Science provides tentative theories. So a belief in those theories can only be provisional, as new evidence might forced these theories to either to be changed or abandoned. Religion is not open to that. It's a blind faith, regardless if new evidence comes to the fore.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion is not open to that. It's a blind faith, regardless if new evidence comes to the fore.

That is biased nonsense. Many view religion as inference to best explanation.

 

[Willamena]

Religion is not open to that. It's a blind faith, regardless if new evidence comes to the fore.

It kind of is. While a philosophy isn't required to believe--only a basic indoctrination--it's also the case that Western religion has a philosophical background, the same root background that produced logic, physics and empiricism.


Edit: If the topic interests you, I rather enjoyed and recommend Luc Ferry's book: http://www.amazon.ca/Brief-History-...70493&sr=8-1&keywords=luc+ferry+brief+history

 

[ArtieE]

It kind of is, but a philosophy isn't required to disbelieve. All that's required is a contrary worldview.

Atheism in it's most inclusive form isn't disbelief. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Wikipedia. It's not the opposite of belief but most inclusively, meaning basically, it's just the absence of belief.

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]" Wikipedia.

Atheists as a group don't have any core beliefs, concepts and attitudes in common except that they lack a belief in gods. Buddhists and secular Jews both lack a belief in gods and are atheists but who in their right mind would put them all in the same group claiming they have all other "basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes" in common?

 

[Willamena]

Atheism in it's most inclusive form isn't disbelief. "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." Wikipedia. It's not the opposite of belief but most inclusively, meaning basically, it's just the absence of belief.

I agree that disbelief isn't necessary, but a contrary worldview cannot be avoided. It's the essential reason for "the absence of belief..." We have all, with our information and beliefs, painted a picture of what the world looks like, and it looks unique to each of us. That there is no belief that a deity or deity's exist, for a person, is because they either aren't needed or aren't there, in that particular picture. Either belief in them is extraneous or superfluous to the picture (disbelief), or the sum of the information and beliefs does not include deity or deities (agnosticism). In any case, it is the contrary worldview that makes for atheists.

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]" Wikipedia.

Atheists as a group don't have any core beliefs, concepts and attitudes in common except that they lack a belief in gods. Buddhists and secular Jews both lack a belief in gods and are atheists but who in their right mind would put them all in the same group claiming they have all other "basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes" in common?

Atheists, as a historical group, at least until the modern day when babies and rocks have begun to be included, have always matched their worldview against the worldview of theists, and found extraneous and superfluous bits to argue about.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree that disbelief isn't necessary, but a contrary worldview cannot be avoided. It's the essential reason for "the absence of belief..." We have all, with our information and beliefs, painted a picture of what the world looks like, and it looks unique to each of us. That there is no belief that a deity or deity's exist, for a person, is because they either aren't needed or aren't there, in that particular picture. Either belief in them is extraneous or superfluous to the picture (disbelief), or the sum of the information and beliefs does not include deity or deities (agnosticism). In any case, it is the contrary worldview that makes for atheists.


Atheists, as a historical group, at least until the modern day when babies and rocks have begun to be included, have always matched their worldview against the worldview of theists, and found extraneous and superfluous bits to argue about.

You are aware that it is the very existence of theism that even makes the concept of atheism necessary, right?

 

[Willamena]

You are aware that it is the very existence of theism that even makes the concept of atheism necessary, right?

Did I say otherwise?

 

[LuisDantas]

Did I say otherwise?

It would seem that you must think otherwise, given your understanding of what atheism should mean. And there is also this:

Atheists, as a historical group, at least until the modern day when babies and rocks have begun to be included, have always matched their worldview against the worldview of theists, and found extraneous and superfluous bits to argue about.

You are implying atheism as an active choice or stance, when it is in fact just an absence of same. The desire to state the non-existence of god or to argue are strictly accessory and optional to atheism itself.

 

[Willamena]

It would seem that you must think otherwise, given your understanding of what atheism should mean. And there is also this:



You are implying atheism as an active choice or stance, when it is in fact just an absence of same. The desire to state the non-existence of god or to argue are strictly accessory and optional to atheism itself.

Given a choice, I will always take the stance of atheism being an informed decision over an uninformed accident.

So sue me.

 

[jmn]

This is kinda where I sit as well.
Scientific hypothesis, like dark matter, are necessary tools in trying to understand our surroundings, and in developing empirical tests which can then prove or disprove them. They should be understood as our best guess, in simple terms.

Agree
Without scientific hypothesis, science has no foundation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Given a choice, I will always take the stance of atheism being an informed decision over an uninformed accident.

So sue me.

But that is such an unrealistic, biased stance for one to have! Atheism can hardly be understood as needing information.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism can hardly be understood as needing information.

I don't believe I promoted it as such.

What I refer to as a worldview is all the experiences, knowledge and memories of a life-time that will inform our outlook, here and now. You have one, I have one, we each have one, and since no two are the same, if a comparison happens some things are bound to be mismatched. They "won't fit" in the other's worldview.

Some have theism in their worldview, or parts thereof, and for others it doesn't fit. To them it's found to be extraneous or superfluous. For others, it's not in their worldview at all.

All that's required for atheism is a contrary worldview.

 

[jmn]

But that is such an unrealistic, biased stance for one to have! Atheism can hardly be understood as needing information.

Agree that atheism at its base, is rejection of belief in such ideas.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree that disbelief isn't necessary, but a contrary worldview cannot be avoided.

There is no atheistic contrary worldview. Everybody has the default atheistic rationalistic world view we are born with, the one that makes us look for auditory and observational evidence that no cars are coming before we cross the street and trust our lives with every day, but some of us has put a layer on top of this worldview and this layer is based on faith and belief in inspiration, revelation and authority. Imagine the rationalistic worldview being the foundation, on top of which some people put an extra layer of faith and irrationality. I trust my god with my life they say, but you may notice that every time they cross the street they trust reason and evidence instead. Atheists can't fathom why theists have put an extra layer of irrationality and faith on top of the rationality they employ every day to stay alive.

 

[ArtieE]

All that's required for atheism is a contrary worldview.

All that's required for atheism is lack of belief in gods. Absolutely nothing else is required.

 

[ArtieE]

Agree that atheism at its base, is rejection of belief in such ideas.

Atheism isn't a rejection of anything. It is the default condition. If people hadn't invented gods the words theists and atheists wouldn't have been invented either and everybody would lack belief in gods. So the only reason some are called theists and atheists is that people invented gods. Those who believe in the invented gods are called theists, those who act as if nobody invented gods and as if the invented gods don't exist are called atheists.

 

[jmn]

Atheism isn't a rejection of anything.

Disagree

Rejection of understood ideas put forth, makes sense to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Disagree

Rejection of understood ideas put forth, makes sense to me.

That is a bit too restrictive, though. Who can tell that anyone (theist or otherwise) understood the idea of God?