Atheist Re-Activism

[Windwalker]

No. Atheism - linguistically, and by definition - is the lack of theism. It is the blank slate.

The best analogy that I've heard for this is as follows: if you turn off a TV what channel is that TV on?

Antitheism is the response to theism. Antitheism is the "negative answer" to the question regarding gods.

No it's not. A-Theism, means "no-God". That is an answer to a question. It's not a blank slate. A blank slate is neither theism nor its opposite atheism. I

t's like saying if you're not a Democrat, you're a Republican by default. Both are points of view. To say there is no-God, is a point of view. To call yourself an atheist, is to identify yourself with that point of view. End of story.

Prior to religion, you are a "pre-theist/pre-atheist". For me where I am at, I am a trans-theist/trans-atheist, meaning I recognize those as simply perspectives on the nature of ultimate reality. One can understand it from both of those perspectives, as perspectives, yet not limit one's understanding to those conceptual boxes, which they are.

To exclude God, is to define reality as lacking God. I see it more in terms of "Neti Neti", "Not this, not that". Atheism is saying "Not that". Such itself is a mental construct, just like defining a theological God is a mental construct. All mental constructs are beliefs. Hence, atheism is a belief, just like theism is.

What you can properly call the "default position" , that which is before and beyond conceptual points of view called theism or atheism, is "Awareness". That's it. We are simply Aware, that is the 'blank slate'. Then the very second you call anything whatsoever by a word, then the blank slate is no longer blank. You've written a word upon it, an idea. You've named it. Atheism is naming it something. Theism is naming it something. Atheism is not at all "undifferentiated consciousness" itself. It has defined reality as lacking God.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No it's not. A-Theism, means "no-God".

No, that would be a-deus or "a-deism". Theism is spiritual belief. "A-" being "without" makes that "without spiritual belief".

So again, what channel is a turned off TV on?

 

[Windwalker]

No, that would be a-deus or "a-deism". Theism is spiritual belief. "A-" being "without" makes that "without spiritual belief".

Well, I don't necessarily consider theism to be spiritual belief. It's a philosophical point of view, if anything. It's a metaphysical belief.

Spirituality is something different than concepts. Spirituality is lived experience. Atheists can in fact be deeply spiritual, without the window dressing of supernaturalism. I considered myself a "spiritual atheist" for many years, until I decided that the "atheism" identifier was a moot point. The deeper realities of spirituality goes beyond beliefs. Spirituality is quite literally "beyond belief".

So no, atheism does not mean no spiritual belief. I was an atheist and had plenty of ideas about what spirituality is. I still do. Atheism on the other hand is a direct rejection of an idea about the existence of a supernatural being religion calls God. That is what theism is. Belief in the concept of God. Spirituality transcends and precedes that.

So again, what channel is a turned off TV on?

Not the atheist channel! A turned off TV, is just a box. It does have anything at all to say. Unlike atheism, which says there is no God.

Here's the point I think you may not have see what I said to the other poster. Before we are told about God, we perceive reality as we perceive it. When someone hears the idea of God, they may say, "Yes, that's how I see reality already". Or "No, that doesn't fit how I see reality". They were and are perceiving reality not as "no God", but as simply lacking a word to describe it. Same thing for the atheist. So no, prior to hearing about God, they may have in fact been theists, without knowledge of it as such, or atheists, without knowledge of it as such.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, but it is quirk of the Internet and culture. It in a sense has nothing to do with atheists as such. It is a subculture on the Internet for in effect a certain version of objectivism, empiricism, rationality and other words used to claim in effect a better way of understanding the world and what we ought to do about it.
So yes, you are right about atheists as such. Years ago I can across an online group of militant rationalists, who self-described as that. That is more fitting than atheism.

Makes sense to me. I never really hear people talk about what theists do, and with good reason. There is a level of diversity and difference beneath that term that makes any comment about them which assumes coherency somewhat of a nonsense.

Too many people, though, then go ahead and talk about atheism as if it has a higher level of homogeneity than it does.
Worth noting, atheists are also sometimes guilty of this, assigning unwarranted positive traits in much the same way some assign unwarranted negative traits.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

A turned off TV, is just a box. It does have anything at all to say. Unlike atheism, which says there is no God.

Right, so just as the TV doesn't have a channel on it, an Atheist doesn't have a belief.

This isn't a matter of what you believe or consider it to mean, atheism is defined as a lack of spiritual belief in a god or gods. It is not defined as making a claim or statement that gods do not exist; that is antitheism

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why do we need to "advocate"? Why can;t we just share our experiences, and our conclusions drawn form them, and let everyone else decide what it means for them? Why do we feel this need to debate and argue, to push our views of truth and reality on others?

Because we live in societies. Scaling the society up or down changes the paradigm somewhat, but ultimately we need more broad agreement on how we associate with each other than merely 'each deciding their own position'. This has been reinforced over time by what happens when united and coherent groups encounter divided and retiscient ones.

Your argument is sound enough, idealistically. But so is pacifism, to an even more extreme level. And acknowledging that pacifism is the ideal doesn't make me think it's likely we'll ever reach a point where there is no violence (short of drastically impacting on other things like freedom or the very existence of humans).

I think it's just a humans obsession with control.
I agree. And this is an important distinction to make. Because those institutions have agendas beyond and apart from the theologies they claim to serve. And we as people need to recognize this, and recognize that those agendas will run counter to the purpose they claim to be serving.

This is why I have long ago rejected organized religion. I am not against religion as a theological service. But when it becomes 'organized', it becomes more and more incapable of rendering the service it purports to render. It becomes dysfunctional, and often toxic.
This is why it's important to gain some clarity regarding the specifics of these various motives and endeavors (religion, politics, and society).
I differentiate between theism, religion, and organized religion; and politicians that use religion for other purposes. It may appear that I argue "both sides", sometimes. But to me they are not "both sides" of the same argument. They are all different agendas posing different arguments.

This all basically makes sense to me, and I think the distinctions you make between theism, religion, and organized religion are important ones.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Most people don't know the difference between stating an opinion and positing a truth claim. Perhaps you are one of them?

It's possible, but I don't think so.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting all theists do this. But there are plenty who do. There are people who base their whole lives...and even their deaths...around the likelihood of their truth claims being accurate.

Atheism...at least mine...is opinionative. I have no way to prove it's true, and little enough wish to.

 

[Windwalker]

Right, so just as the TV doesn't have a channel on it, an Atheist doesn't have a belief.

Wrong. I did not say that. I said the Atheism is a channel on the TV opposite to the Theism channel. It's an alternative channel of programming. It's not an absence of the TV itself. It has content. And the content says that reality does not contain a God. It's saying something. It's broadcasting information. It's the atheist channel.

Hell, just search YouTube for any atheist channel, and you'll see it has plenty to say about atheism. It's not just static noise!

This isn't a matter of what you believe or consider it to mean, atheism is defined as a lack of spiritual belief in a god or gods.

No, atheism is not defined as that. Atheism is defined as a denial of the belief of God. It is forever bound to the concept of God, by its very name alone. Theism is attached to it. It is not a mere lack. I've explained this in detail, yet you did not address a single point I raised, and simply repeated yourself.

It is not defined as making a claim or statement that gods do not exist; that is antitheism

No, that is not Anti-theism. Anti theism is opposed to belief in God. It sees it as evil and wants to get rid of it. But atheism just simply doesn't believe in the idea of a God. Historical atheism, intelligent atheism, understands that religious beliefs have meaning to people, and so they are careful in how they see a world without God belief in it. They are thoughtful. They simply don't believe what the Church says about God. But anti-theism is simply iconoclastic, smashing idols because they can, and have little to say to fill its void. It's simply destruction for destruction sake, because of an axe to grind with religion.

But atheism is still a belief, no matter how you slice it. It believes that the ultimate truth of the universe is that there is no God in charge of it. What is so unsettling about that idea for you? Calling that a belief? I called myself an atheist for years, and I knew it was a belief. Does the world "belief" sound like a religious word to you or something you don't want to associate yourself with, that you're beyond having beliefs about these things, that you're smarter than that now? You have evidence now, and you have no need to beliefs anymore? I honestly don't know how that reasoning works, frankly.

If you do respond again, would you please address the points I raised about how that atheism cannot be the default position, as someone who has never heard of God may in fact just simply lack a word for something to describe their experience of reality, the same way an atheist might not now what how to call their perception of reality? Prior to God belief is not atheism. Prior to God belief, or unbelief, is simply a lack of language. Not a lack of perspectives.

I had an experience of reality that was rather profound, before I had an religious language or concepts. Then someone after the fact told me that was God. But calling it God or not, did not change the reality of my experience. It was still my experience prior to the God concept being introduced. But I can say that that default position was anything but a lack. I just didn't have a name for it. And today, I may use that name, or not call it God at all. If I do it's more simply a finger pointing at the moon, and not the moon itself, as it is for the typical religionist.

But I can see it frankly as "God beyond God", in other words, no words at all. And Atheism, is a word. So it Theism. As I said, flipsides of the same coin of mental construct. Both are concepts. Neither is a blank slate.

So can you deal with that? My point is, you cannot say that the atheistic perspective the default, because every human is different.

BTW, if you care to understand the difference between atheism and anti-theism, read this article: Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

 

[Tiberius]

IMO this is like the race issue. They are only issues because everyone keeps talking about them and keeps them an issue. If people focused more on their own life, their own happiness, their own problems.. everything would be much better.

The problem is that racism gets people to NOT just concentrate on their own lives, but tries to interfere with the lives of others as well. And religion is similar. Believers have long been trying to get their religious based ideas passed into law so they can affect other people who may not share those beliefs.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Wrong. I did not say that.

You said the turned off TV is "just a box", yes. Point still stands that it does not have a channel on it. Your insistence on an "atheist channel" is completely beside the point, as it is incorrect. Again; just as the TV does not have a channel, an Atheist does not have belief. It is not a negative belief any more than a TV turned off is displaying a negative channel. Atheism is the absence of belief, not the objection to.

No, atheism is not defined as that.

Factually incorrect.

athe·ism n
1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
1b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

You are blatantly ignoring the Greek prefix of "a-" which denotes an absence. So your "in detail" explanation is irrelevant as it is rooted in linguistical inaccuracy and personal anecdote.

No, that is not Anti-theism. Anti theism is opposed to belief in God. It sees it as evil and wants to get rid of it. But atheism just simply doesn't believe in the idea of a God. Historical atheism, intelligent atheism, understands that religious beliefs have meaning to people, and so they are careful in how they see a world without God belief in it. They are thoughtful. They simply don't believe what the Church says about God. But anti-theism is simply iconoclastic, smashing idols because they can, and have little to say to fill its void. It's simply destruction for destruction sake, because of an axe to grind with religion.

You literally just backed up what I said.

But atheism is still a belief, no matter how you slice it.

No, it is not. Absence of belief does not make for a belief, no matter how much you want it to.

you cannot say that the atheistic perspective the default, because every human is different.

Yes, I can. Even as a theist myself I can say that, because without a cultural frame for a belief in a deity, or without the belief in that deity to found one's theism, there is simply a lack of belief. That is, by definition, atheism. Just as you are, I would assume, atheistic towards Thor or Ra or Raijin, Atheists are simply atheistic toward one more god than you. That is not to say that they are claiming these gods don't exist, only that they do not believe in them.

I really do not see what is so hard to understand about that.

EDIT: Here, let's try this. Is a blank canvas a painting? Is an empty page a novel?

 

[Windwalker]

You said the turned off TV is "just a box", yes. Point still stands that it does not have a channel on it. Your insistence on an "atheist channel" is completely beside the point, as it is incorrect. Again; just as the TV does not have a channel, an Atheist does not have belief.

You say that, but you don't support that. Saying it doesn't make it so. This isn't the world of Donald Trump where if you just saying something untrue enough times, it magically makes it true. Does an atheist believe that God exists? Yes, or no? Please answer that simple question.

It is not a negative belief any more than a TV turned off is displaying a negative channel. Atheism is the absence of belief, not the objection to.

Nonsense. But I never said atheism is a negative belief per se. It can be positive belief. "I believe no God exists", is a positive belief statement. "I do not believe God exists", is a negative belief statement. But atheism can be a positive worldview, for sure. I don't consider atheism itself to be a negative outlook on life, or anything like that, if that is what you are suggesting.

Factually incorrect.

Factually true. Atheism is not defined as "atheism is defined as a lack of spiritual belief", as you falsely said, twice.

athe·ism n
1a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
1b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

BTW, the "lack of belief, is in some very specific idea. It is a lack of belief in the idea of God. That is NOT the same thing as the absence of knowledge! It's NOT unawareness of the question. You cannot twist this definition of atheism, which I accept, to mean that "lack of belief" means the absence of awareness of the question. Period.

You are blatantly ignoring the Greek prefix of "a-" which denotes an absence. So your "in detail" explanation is irrelevant as it is rooted in linguistical inaccuracy and personal anecdote.

You really don't understand this do you? That absence is an absence of belief regarding the question of God's existence. Not an absence in knowing the question. You are more than straining to make this fit. Why is that? What is it that makes you so uncomfortable about that?

This discussion is nonsense. I'm finished here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's possible, but I don't think so.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting all theists do this. But there are plenty who do. There are people who base their whole lives...and even their deaths...around the likelihood of their truth claims being accurate.

Atheism...at least mine...is opinionative. I have no way to prove it's true, and little enough wish to.

I try to do my religion the same way.

 

[PureX]

Because we live in societies. Scaling the society up or down changes the paradigm somewhat, but ultimately we need more broad agreement on how we associate with each other than merely 'each deciding their own position'. This has been reinforced over time by what happens when united and coherent groups encounter divided and retiscient ones.

Your argument is sound enough, idealistically. But so is pacifism, to an even more extreme level. And acknowledging that pacifism is the ideal doesn't make me think it's likely we'll ever reach a point where there is no violence (short of drastically impacting on other things like freedom or the very existence of humans).

We don't need to think alike, we need to respect our ability and right not to think alike. We do, however, need to act in accord with the well-being of our social collective.

So I don't care much what other people choose to 'believe'. I care about how they choose to behave toward others. And a lot of the misbehavior I see in that regard comes from people wanting everyone else to 'believe' like they do.

 

[PureX]

It's possible, but I don't think so.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting all theists do this. But there are plenty who do. There are people who base their whole lives...and even their deaths...around the likelihood of their truth claims being accurate.

They are living their truth, yes. And they will proclaim it to be their truth. But that doesn't mean they are proclaiming it to be YOUR truth, and that you are a fool if you don't agree with it. Very few theists take theism to that degree, while a good many atheists DO. At least the ones that come here.

Atheism...at least mine...is opinionative. I have no way to prove it's true, and little enough wish to.

Most theists feel the same way about their theism. Not that it's opinion, but that it's their truth. Not everyone's truth.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Does an atheist believe that God exists? Yes, or no? Please answer that simple question.

I have answered this question, repeatedly. You are fundamentally misunderstanding - intentionally or not - because you prefer your view that Atheism is a direct claim rather than an absence of. Even after having the word broken down. Even after having it defined. Even after multiple allegories illustrating states of non-being.

I'm going to answer this once more, but this is a complete sentence. Mincing it is intellectually dishonest.

No, in general atheists do not believe that gods exist, yet very few make active claims that gods do not exist.

Atheism is not defined as "atheism is defined as a lack of spiritual belief", as you falsely said, twice.

I literally gave the definition. This is absolutely ridiculously preposterous at this point, wind. Let's break this down Kindergarten style, I suppose.

"A lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
"Atheism is defined as a lack of spiritual belief."

Atheism, from the the French athéisme (16th Century, addition of -ism "condition or quality of being"), from the Greek atheos (ἄθεος) (a- "without" theos "gods").

Other examples of words with the alpha privative ("a-") are asexual (without sexuality), amoral (without morals) and agnostic (without gnosis/knowledge).

This cannot be broken down any further, or made any clearer. Beyond this, ignorance is retained willfully.

That absence is an absence of belief regarding the question of God's existence. Not an absence in knowing the question.

"Knowing the question" was never a part of this. Nice red herring, though.

 

[JustWondering]

Too many times media story headlines start off with "black man" or "white man".
Why not just say "a man"? Because they keep the race issue burning that way IMO.

I agree the world would be a better place if people gave up their petty grievances and acted more rationally but I've long ago realized that humans are wired to be aggressive and tribalistic. Humans will always split off into groups and then invent reasons to hate the others. Getting humans not to be hateful would be like getting Lions to willingly give up eating meat. I think humanity as it is now is doomed. My hope is that humanity survives long enough to create a replacement that is better than us. Skynet 2024!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I try to envision what I would do if I was a real atheist. Of all the forums available, I can't see joining one called "Religious Forum" for a social life?

Perhaps you are unaware that if you read the same book every day for your life, and see the same scenery, and talk to the same people -- the likelihood of learning anything new is pretty slim.