Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[Windwalker]

I try not to deal in assumptions.

People do all the time, every day. We fill in the blanks based upon contexts and assume what is meant. It's commonplace in most everything we do. We don't always have the luxury of infinite words spelling everything out to uber-literalist minds which have no imagination. Quit trying to blame someone else for your shortcomings in that area.

As for what atheism thinks...well, it doesn't. Only people can do that.

Thanks. I never could have figured that out. I always thought Atheism was a living entity with two eyes and a nose. But anyway, in reality however, if you knew anything about "group-think" there actually is some truth to say it "thinks". Shared beliefs and values are bigger than just one individual, and that "thing" that collective has actual weight that influences individual thought. This is how cultures works. It's a "we space", and it has influence. So to say "atheism thinks" is not entirely invalid. Shared perspectives are real. I'm not going to hold out hope you'll appreciate that point, but I'll put it out there for you anyway.

More hubris.

If you're going to choose to go this path of insults, then I respond frankly saying this is just an example of a lack of education on your part trying to compensate for that by insulting me.

We are not dealing with equal opposites, we are dealing with one candy in a box of 1000. To someone that doesn't eat candy, not one of those 1000 is relevant in any way. At best, the bag is a tripping hazard to be stepped over carefully.

It's clear that you do not follow what I explained in detail.

Thankfully, we don't live in a world where everyone believes in the same religion, or even any religion.

Oh, but you do. There are shared assumptions about truth and reality that vast swaths of humanity accept without any examination or question. It's invisible to them due to the fact nobody steps outside of it to question it. I could give you lists of such things, but I more interested to see if any of this makes any sense to you at all before I do.

Again you ascribe undue importance to your religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of others. I have no such problem.

You have unawareness. Unlike you I see and recognize how absolutely important and influencal these things are, even for those who claim no religion! In the West, for instance, our entire culture is infused with the values and beliefs that create a backdrop against which you judge and evalatuate everything else. You never look at it that curtain itself because it's just assumed to be reality. I often joke that atheism in the West is really just Christianity without God. People of other countries with foreign cultures often assume we're all Christians in this country and sometimes are surprised to learn we are not. I tend to think that's because they see the cultural backdrop as Christian - which it is.

Again, I'm just putting these things out there hoping it may spark some substantive discussion. But if not, others reading it may see something in there worth thought. God knows its something rather prominent in my awareness that I factor in when considering questions about the nature of truth and reality, theism and atheism, and whatnot.

Is that so? I certainly can't think of any religions that posit 0 claims to be taken on faith. Name one.

Buddhism

But you missed my point. I said that superstition is part of magical thinking. Faith has nothing to do with magical thinking or superstition. Do you know what faith is?

How do you know I don't? I'm not sure you understand what atheism means.

Considering I called myself Atheist for around 10 years of my life during the last couple decades, I think I know what it is. I don't call myself by that now, and I don't really like to call myself a theist either. What I actually believe embraces both. Go figure...

LOL. Ok, I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you about Satanism, nor would this be the place to do so if I were, but just lol.

That's good. It really doesn't hold much interest for me. I can't imagine the value of elevating an anti-symbol for any reason other than embracing defiance for the sake of self-empowerment. That can have it's place, for a time, but I would worry about it becoming a pathology if that eventually the person didn't grow beyond that as a result of doing that.

No, I don't believe in any of those things, what are you talking about?

You were giving me examples of atheists who believe in ghosts and whatnot. I was trying to understand what you were referring to. You must have someone in mind, right? Who is that?

Well there you have it. You definitely don't know what atheism means. It's really not hard, let me help.

An atheist is anyone that remains unconvinced of the existence of DEITIES. Are all supernatural occurrences deities? Are ghosts deities? Is a unicorn a deity?

OK then, so you believe in magical beings but just don't call them deities? And that makes you and atheist? Help me understand here. This is very new and curious to me. Quite fascinating actually.

 

[Kirran]

Maybe in your head, but according to the rules of the English language what you wrote is grammatically incoherent.

"It can't be the existence within which you have your being and the true nature of your own self as undivided timeless consciousness."

You were talking about God as being an imaginary companion. I was something can't be a companion if it is not some accompanying entity, but is instead existence itself and your own true nature, which is undivided timeless consciousness. This is not a conception of God which fits into this fairytale rhetoric.

Strange, when I do it I get a full page of results.

Let me help
http://bfy.tw/8J1f

Haha, Bing beat Google on this one - I got a page full of Portuguese-language stuff. I'll watch the video when I am at home.

 

[ArtieE]

I often joke that atheism in the West is really just Christianity without God.

Theism isn't a religion. Atheism isn't a religion. Christianity is a religion. Principles such as the Golden Rule were known long before Christianity. Christianity is just ancient moral principles plus a god to provide people incentive to follow them.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

People do all the time, every day. We fill in the blanks based upon contexts and assume what is meant. It's commonplace in most everything we do. We don't always have the luxury of infinite words spelling everything out to uber-literalist minds which have no imagination. Quit trying to blame someone else for your shortcomings in that area.

LOL. Hey man, there's no need to get all buthurt because of your sloppy use of language. I can only respond to what you write, not what you 'meant to say ' but couldn't quite manage.

Thanks. I never could have figured that out. I always thought Atheism was a living entity with two eyes and a nose. But anyway, in reality however, if you knew anything about "group-think" there actually is some truth to say it "thinks". Shared beliefs and values are bigger than just one individual, and that "thing" that collective has actual weight that influences individual thought. This is how cultures works. It's a "we space", and it has influence. So to say "atheism thinks" is not entirely invalid. Shared perspectives are real. I'm not going to hold out hope you'll appreciate that point, but I'll put it out there for you anyway.

Again, your failing not mine with regards to sloppy language. And again, there is no 'atheist shared perspective outside of one insignificant shared opinion. You might as well be trying to define a person based on whether they take 1 sugar or 2 in their coffee for how important this issue is to people that don't believe in it.

If you're going to choose to go this path of insults, then I respond frankly saying this is just an example of a lack of education on your part trying to compensate for that by insulting me.

Everything I have written is in direct response to what you have written. I have not insulted you as what you have written matches the definition of hubris, I've said nothing about you personally. Ironically, it appears this post I am replying to contains multiple ad hom attacks on your part. Don't cha love hypocrisy?

It's clear that you do not follow what I explained in detail.

Is that so?

Oh, but you do. There are shared assumptions about truth and reality that vast swaths of humanity accept without any examination or question. It's invisible to them due to the fact nobody steps outside of it to question it. I could give you lists of such things, but I more interested to see if any of this makes any sense to you at all before I do.

I agree, and have actually written volumes to that effect. That is neither here nor there vis a vis the text this is supposed to be in reply to however.

You have unawareness. Unlike you I see and recognize how absolutely important and influencal these things are, even for those who claim no religion! In the West, for instance, our entire culture is infused with the values and beliefs that create a backdrop against which you judge and evalatuate everything else. You never look at it that curtain itself because it's just assumed to be reality. I often joke that atheism in the West is really just Christianity without God. People of other countries with foreign cultures often assume we're all Christians in this country and sometimes are surprised to learn we are not. I tend to think that's because they see the cultural backdrop as Christian - which it is.

You sure do seem to enjoy assumption and speculation.

Buddhism

Did you type that with a straight face?

But you missed my point. I said that superstition is part of magical thinking. Faith has nothing to do with magical thinking or superstition. Do you know what faith is?

In the context of religion faith is a belief held without or even in spite of tangible evidence. This sort of belief is necessarily 'magical thinking ' else faith wouldn't be required in the first place.

Considering I called myself Atheist for around 10 years of my life during the last couple decades, I think I know what it is. I don't call myself by that now, and I don't really like to call myself a theist either. What I actually believe embraces both. Go figure...

Yet you seem to believe 'Atheism' encompasses the rejection of any and all superstitions. That's simply not what the word means.

You were giving me examples of atheists who believe in ghosts and whatnot. I was trying to understand what you were referring to. You must have someone in mind, right? Who is that?

So you are saying that every single person on earth that believes in ghosts also must believe in God? Ok then...

OK then, so you believe in magical beings but just don't call them deities? And that makes you and atheist? Help me understand here. This is very new and curious to me. Quite fascinating actually.

No. I didn't say that. Maybe try reading slower?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

"It can't be the existence within which you have your being and the true nature of your own self as undivided timeless consciousness."

You were talking about God as being an imaginary companion. I was something can't be a companion if it is not some accompanying entity, but is instead existence itself and your own true nature, which is undivided timeless consciousness. This is not a conception of God which fits into this fairytale rhetoric.

Ok. Still no idea what you are trying to get at.

Haha, Bing beat Google on this one - I got a page full of Portuguese-language stuff. I'll watch the video when I am at home.

No, Google picks up a page worth or so too. It just separates the words on the first search.

 

[Kirran]

Ok. Still no idea what you are trying to get at.

Do you think it might be because there are entire areas of theistic thought you haven't encountered?

No, Google picks up a page worth or so too. It just separates the words on the first search.

Fair enough.

 

[Windwalker]

And again, there is no 'atheist shared perspective outside of one insignificant shared opinion.

And again, you grossly understate the significance of holding an atheist worldview, whatever form or shape that takes. You make it sound like, "Oh it's just that, nothing really." That's a nice fiction. I tried to explain how and in what ways it does influence basically everything it touches, but those examples seem to escape you. After three times trying to explain it I don't feel a fourth will help.

You might as well be trying to define a person based on whether they take 1 sugar or 2 in their coffee for how important this issue is to people that don't believe in it.

The better analogy would be to say defining someone as educated or not educated, or something that impacts the totality of shaping and influencing their worldviews. Since when does a worldview mean nothing more that one lump or two in your coffee?

You think atheism is just a little side thing, a simple non-cosequential belief? This screams ignorance to me. Let's focus on this point of you trying to minimize it's far-reaching effects. I see it more like the rudder that steers a ship. You see more like a deckchair or an ornament of some kind.

I agree, and have actually written volumes to that effect. That is neither here nor there vis a vis the text this is supposed to be in reply to however.

If you see what you have written and claim to know here as neither here nor there, then I have serious doubts about what you think it is you understand. Color me skeptical.

Did you type that with a straight face?

You think Buddhism is a faith-based religion full of magical thinking? Please enlighten us.

In the context of religion faith is a belief held without or even in spite of tangible evidence.

Nope. That's a purely modern misunderstanding of it, shared by many within the Christian religion itself. That's not what faith is. I tried to explain that before in referring to how Hinduism speaks of faith as what you set your heart upon. It's not a head thing. It's not beliefs. There is a whopping big difference between beliefs and faith. Beliefs can change while faith remains. It's a matter of the heart, not the head. We are talking across each other on this for sure if you think faith means beliefs.

This sort of belief is necessarily 'magical thinking ' else faith wouldn't be required in the first place.

Do you know what magical thinking is? Do you know what mythic thinking is and how that's different than magical thinking? I assume you understanding how rationalistic thinking, or scientific thinking is different than both magic and mythic thinking? Do you realize that people can have faith in each of these general overall domains and it has nothing to do with the modes of thought themselves?

Yet you seem to believe 'Atheism' encompasses the rejection of any and all superstitions. That's simply not what the word means.

Well, admittedly I'm coming to a new understanding here and I appreciate it. You are right. I have been thinking that modern atheism was necessarily operating at the rationalistic level, the modern or scientific worldviews. But I seem to have let the question escape me about it existing in mythic and magic stages of consciousness, those "modes" of general overall thought and worldviews. Of course you would have those at the mythic stage as atheists. I would tend to see them probably as generally pre-scientific, still imagining forces and whatnot governing everything, like the stars and the moons bringing about wars and happy marriages where they would try to get these forces to work in their favors through some sort of ritual or another, but they simply throw out the governing super-being others call a god.

For the magical stages, well they wouldn't have a god at all because those don't exist until the mythic levels. But you would not call them atheists then, because theism hasn't even become a factor yet. The theism question only begins to exist at the mythic stage. You can't call them atheists because they haven't arrived to that question or mode of thinking that would allow that to exist. It would be like calling a mythic believer anti-rational. They are not. They are pre-rational. Pre something does not equal a chose against something. It would be like calling a 3 year old "single", whereas romantic relationships are not part of their world yet. It would be inappropriate to use a language which would only fit in an adult context.

I'm just processing out loud here. This makes sense to me and I appreciate the insight you've given me to consider atheism in the pre-scientific modes of thoughts or overall worldviews. I've been assuming all atheists are at the scientific stage, whereas in reality it can exist in mythic systems as well, but not before that. It almost seems obvious now. But I've just never encountered those who call themselves atheists who are flying within the prescientific airspaces. Have you?

So you are saying that every single person on earth that believes in ghosts also must believe in God? Ok then...

No, you're right. I should not assume all atheists are at least modernist as I have been. I should not assume the rationalist stage where scientific thinking overshadows mythic belief.

 

[ArtieE]

And again, you grossly understate the significance of holding an atheist worldview, whatever form or shape that takes.

Can you clarify? What would a theist have to believe besides that one or more gods exist to qualify as a theist? What worldview would a person who is not a theist have to have in order to qualify as not a theist?

 

[Windwalker]

Can you clarify? What would a theist have to believe besides that one or more gods exist to qualify as a theist?

What I mean by a theistic or atheistic worldview is not a particular set of beliefs, but a worldview that has the curtain of either theistic or atheistic understandings of the nature of ultimate reality present whatever that worldview may be. So an atheistic worldview would be any worldview held by someone who is an atheist.

But to focus more specifically about this "curtain" as I just called, I talked a little bit before about the backdrop assumptions we take as "givens". Those are like the paper we draw everything else out upon in order to see them and give them definition. The pencil line without the paper is nothing. When it comes to a theistic worldview, it assumes the presence of divinity and everything you think and do has that as the backdrop.

To give an example, let's assume here for the moment "God" is the anthropomorphic deity, the "guy in the sky" kind of God of mythic beliefs quite dominant in Western Christianity (though not exclusively). Assume this person hold that this God is aware of everything he does, that even if he may not be living a religious life, believes that this God is "up there" somehow somewhere and either cares about him, or believes one day he'll answer to him for being a good or bad person here. In this example, that background is always there, if not consciously, most certainly subconsciously! It feeds into every thought as "color".

It colorizes everything is probably the best way to put that, even if it is not consciously aware in the forefront of his thoughts. So an atheist worldview, a worldview held by an atheist, will in fact be infused by that particular absence of theistic beliefs. It is not just some ornament and inconsequential to the formation of everything else that goes into shaping and molding one's worldview, whatever that may be. I reject such a minimization.

 

[Acim]

You're correct technically, but you can't equivocate.

I have a reasonable certainly that the physical world exists, and that I exist. We invented some logical axioms, which I accept. in genreal, most people tend to agree that the world exists. It's a set of claims with enough warrant and demonstrable phenomena for me to accept as most likely true.

There are also limits. You can claim that the sun won't be visible over the eastern horizon tomorrow morning, but you'd be wrong. The phenomena you observe will simply contradict that claim.

The observation (and what exactly is making that observation) is the circular claim. It is nothing but circular.
It becomes arguably less circular if meaning is attached, which it usually is, but at times is mundane (intentionally so, I think).

The spiritual-metaphysical based claims are ultimately personal. There is no way to verify or demonstrate any of your claims to anyone else, ever. This is a problem for me, because it's nothing but circular. . . The limits of rational thinking, untempered by any empirical common sense.

Here's where you are equivocating and yet saying I cannot. Spiritual-metaphysical claims are attaching meaning to the claim, that a supreme being is involved and influencing (if not directing) the observed processes. Science deals with what (and how), not why. In much of life, why is a very important consideration. I would definitely enter into debate which argues that it is far more important consideration than what/how.

A spiritual-metaphysical claim could engage in not being concerned with why, but just what. Such that anytime you observe a human, you are observing a child of God. So tomorrow, if you observe humans, you are observing children of God. Yes, circular, but also will be backed up by observation.

Again, not like your example on the physical are not circular. They most definitely are. Or answer why anyone ought to be concerned with whether or not sun will be visible on the eastern horizon tomorrow morning. And anticipating a plausible response to that, how their concern could plausibly be mitigated if it were universally true that no one does see it.

And with that set of claims, there are a absolutely no limits. You can claim that god told you anything, that god is anything, and justify almost any belief system. With faith, every spiritual claim is justified in itself, and consequently, any morality.

There are limits, but you are certainly downplaying them. Same holds true for empiricism. You can make whatever claims you want and a whole lot can be justified, but determined (by some, perhaps a majority) as inaccurate, which does not limit the claims from being made.

Also, empiricism can be applied to spiritual/metaphysical claims. In my theological understandings, what empiricism deals with is not something to remove from reasonable consideration with regards to spiritual ideas, insight and knowledge.

Also, BTW I am not following the stuff about the dictionary and rock gods. I think I get the semantics, but I don't understand what you're trying to say or why it's relevant.

God(s) in essence influence people. What people attribute to offering in their lives supreme or great influence can (I would argue often does) amount to gods. If sticking only to sound bite type rhetoric, this may come off as incidental point, but if dealing with either ancient religions or gnostic/new age thought, it very much plays into the idea of "do not place any Gods before your Creator (God)." It has definite ramifications, most to all of which have to do with the person holding such views, and really none that are on God. That God is entirely unthreatened by it, yet (quite visibly) you may be, because of such attribution.

I know you didn't want to answer my question in my last post, but I think you should try to stretch yourself and see if you can give me a genuine example. It may not be what you're getting at, but it's a two way conversation, and I'd like to address it.

Perhaps you need to ask the question in another way for me to understand it. As I currently understand it, all possible examples would be a matter of faith (ultimately) in their rejection. I'm currently not aware of any exceptions.

 

[Acim]

One cannot declare this!
Its a self contradicting statement...
Its like saying I'm so lucky i have no luck..
or Its like saying You know you don't know anything..

They certainly can declare these things. The question / debate is how accurate is it.

If someone says they don't know something, how do they know/understand that? I have been down this road before. Feel free to start a thread on it, or let's hash it out here. I'm game either way, but it is built in assumption when someone claims they do not know whatever. From atheist perspective, I could say I lack a belief in their unknowing. Would be interesting to see how they get around that.

 

[Acim]

With theism, besides one's Word, you have no evidence what so ever..

This would be the part where the faith is upheld. It might be correct (then again it might not be) to not have physical evidence for things that are spiritual, but to say there is no evidence is a matter of faith. It's a rather dogmatic assertion. Not too challenging for philosophical person to turn that crap around right back on physical claims, and do a dance all over those claims that (in my experience) will inevitably lead to 'agree to disagree' type assertions, cause apparently the rabbit hole on the physical side of things is not something people really want to get into. Got more important things to do.

So, I'll come back to other things in this post / response, but wishing to be clear that I'm not going to be shy if the genuine philosophical discussion is the one that is really being called forth. Until that point, your claims on the physical stuff, and research, is observably circular logic at work. It ultimately rests on faith (in physical) and literally nothing else.

 

[viole]

This would be the part where the faith is upheld. It might be correct (then again it might not be) to not have physical evidence for things that are spiritual, but to say there is no evidence is a matter of faith. It's a rather dogmatic assertion. Not too challenging for philosophical person to turn that crap around right back on physical claims, and do a dance all over those claims that (in my experience) will inevitably lead to 'agree to disagree' type assertions, cause apparently the rabbit hole on the physical side of things is not something people really want to get into. Got more important things to do.

So, I'll come back to other things in this post / response, but wishing to be clear that I'm not going to be shy if the genuine philosophical discussion is the one that is really being called forth. Until that point, your claims on the physical stuff, and research, is observably circular logic at work. It ultimately rests on faith (in physical) and literally nothing else.

As long as we do not have a clear definition of what a spiritual thing is, any alleged empirical evidence of them is meaningless.

Btw. i have found solid evidence that 0.999999... is 1. If you still believe it is not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

To give an example, let's assume here for the moment "God" is the anthropomorphic deity, the "guy in the sky" kind of God of mythic beliefs quite dominant in Western Christianity (though not exclusively). Assume this person hold that this God is aware of everything he does, that even if he may not be living a religious life, believes that this God is "up there" somehow somewhere and either cares about him, or believes one day he'll answer to him for being a good or bad person here. In this example, that background is always there, if not consciously, most certainly subconsciously! It feeds into every thought as "color".

Yes but theism is just the belief in the EXISTENCE of one or more gods. It says nothing about which god, that this god is aware of everything one does, where the god is or if the god cares about anybody.

It colorizes everything is probably the best way to put that, even if it is not consciously aware in the forefront of his thoughts. So an atheist worldview, a worldview held by an atheist, will in fact be infused by that particular absence of theistic beliefs. It is not just some ornament and inconsequential to the formation of everything else that goes into shaping and molding one's worldview, whatever that may be. I reject such a minimization.

I just don't follow. If a person says he's a theist the only thing he tells me is that he believes one or more gods exist. That's it. He could be a pedophile catholic priest, a member of the IS, a suicide bomber, a saint. Anything. If a person tells me he's an atheist what am I expected to deduce from that besides that the person is not a theist?

 

[Willamena]

What worldview would a person who is not a theist have to have in order to qualify as not a theist?

The worldview that has no god/s or no regard for god/s.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Do you think it might be because there are entire areas of theistic thought you haven't encountered?.

While that is possible, if not likely, that still doesn't change the fact the statement in question is tossed word salad. If you are unable to explain what you mean coherently, I guess we are done.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

And again, you grossly understate the significance of holding an atheist worldview, whatever form or shape that takes.

This is going nowhere. You seem to believe 'Atheism' is this significant package of beliefs and understandings and seem to be extrapolating all sorts of conclusions from that, but what results is a total straw man. No such package exists.

If someone doesn't believe a deity is real, to them the idea of that deity, or deity itself, simply isn't important. It's a big world just full of ideas, and heck, sometimes people even have their own! No need for archaic beliefs about magical invisible beings, one way or the other, are required to hold a worldview. Whether you can wrap your head around that or not really isn't my concern. Project away.

 

[Kirran]

While that is possible, if not likely, that still doesn't change the fact the statement in question is tossed word salad. If you are unable to explain what you mean coherently, I guess we are done.

Would you highlight what it is you don't understand?

What I'm talking about is essentially the view of normative Hinduism, among other traditions.

 

[Kirran]

This is going nowhere. You seem to believe 'Atheism' is this significant package of beliefs and understandings and seem to be extrapolating all sorts of conclusions from that, but what results is a total straw man. No such package exists.

If someone doesn't believe a deity is real, to them the idea of that deity, or deity itself, simply isn't important. It's a big world just full of ideas, and heck, sometimes people even have their own! No need for archaic beliefs about magical invisible beings, one way or the other, are required to hold a worldview. Whether you can wrap your head around that or not really isn't my concern. Project away.

He's just saying that that one belief, theism, is a big deal and really impacts how you see the world. So not holding it (i.e. being an atheist) vs holding it (i.e. being a theist) makes a substantial difference.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Would you highlight what it is you don't understand?

What I'm talking about is essentially the view of normative Hinduism, among other traditions.

Ok, I guess we are done then.