Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Desert Snake]

It seems that the only need for a new word is due to theists erroneously forcing beliefs on atheists that just aren't necessarily accurate. Just like theism, it is a very general term for good reason.

This doesn't make sense. If ''atheism'', means, both, merely a lack of belief in a deity, but not an assertion that there is no deity, and, atheism, also, means, an assertion that there are no deities, then using one definition of ''atheism'', in order to determine whether there is a claim being made when the label ''atheism'' is used, , is nonsensical.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems that the only need for a new word is due to theists erroneously forcing beliefs on atheists that just aren't necessarily accurate. Just like theism, it is a very general term for good reason.

If you say so. It seems that lumping together "disbelief" and "lack of belief" is what's erroneous, and many people don't do that lumping, whether they're theist or atheist. Frankly, the invention of these two words to begin with was a mistake. They're rubbish, worthless, useless terms.

 

[leibowde84]

This doesn't make sense. If ''atheism'', means, both, merely a lack of belief in a deity, but not an assertion that there is no deity, and, atheism, also, means, an assertion that there are no deities, then using one definition in order to determine whether there is a claim being made when ''atheism'' is used, , is nonsensical.

likewise stating 'prove that this specific deity or deity concept is true, is not the same thing as saying, prove that theism is true, or any other specific variant of the question.

This I agree with this. Discussions should be limited to what the two parties assert. For example, Christianity vs strong atheism. Making the assumption that the term atheism is any less general than the term theism (with countless different varieties) is purely the fault if the one making the assumption.

 

[Augustus]

Atheists, by and large, are making no claims, therefore they don't have anything to defend.

Atheism's only claim is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God or gods.

I find it quite hard to agree that an atheist, posting on a religious debate forum, making arguments from an atheistic worldview is making 'no claims'.

The idea that you can completely abstract 'atheism' from any other context, connotation or signified meaning and turn it into a purely neutral taxonomy that is devoid of any implicit complementary meaning goes against the standard usage of language.

People will use the word 'Christian' for example, when almost no specific beliefs are uniform to all people who self identify as Christians. What can you actually say that is categorically true about all Christians?

For the vast majority of atheists, atheism is part of their ideology (Ideology defined as how someone explains to themselves the way things are and the nature of things). Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum in nice neat compartments with no cause/effect relationships and no interrelation.

Many beliefs exist as part of a continuum/matrix, so while the term Muslim conveys very little that is uniformly true about all Muslims, there is some degree of connection between all beliefs that are part of this Muslim continuum. Radical Salafism is not the same as mainstream Sunnism, many of their beliefs specifically go against orthodox Sunni jurisprudence, but we wouldn't say there is no connection between them. We don't hold them as synonymous, don't blame the average Sunni for views they don't hold, but we can admit there is some linkage between them. Most people wouldn't say that radical Salafism has nothing to do with Islam.

Atheists don't have to be materialists, humanists, communists or anti-theists, but an expression of atheism is an ideological statement. Once you have accepted that you are an atheist, this influences many subsequent decisions about the nature of existence. It doesn't per se lead to any of them, but just as there is a link between moderate religion and fundamentalist religion, there is a link between atheism and anti-theism. Just because atheism has no intrinsic link to communism, doesn't mean that an atheistic worldview didn't influence communism.

People might say 'atheism makes no claims', but when actively professed it does make claims about the nature of the world. This is especially true when it is used in the context of a specific discussion.

There seems to be an almost pathological need for many atheists to deny that there could be any link between an atheistic worldview and any negative or oppressive action carried out by an atheist. Even when it is part of an expressed ideology, as in the case of many communists for example, an atheistic worldview is never a partial cause of their behaviour. It may not have been purely atheism that caused it, but an atheistic worldview is certainly related to it.

Just as a religious belief may lead to extremism, so can an atheistic worldview. They are not synonymous, but they are related.

Many atheists here (not all), have certain sacred cows that activate a reflexive defence response if ever questioned. These tend to involve the idea that atheism frequently relates to an ideological position, that it can ever be connected to violence, or that the Enlightenment, 'science' and 'reason' can legitimately be connected to illiberal or totalitarian ideologies.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but that doesn't mean it never is.

Many atheists here will refuse to accept that communism has any connection to the enlightenment and that de-Christianisation of USSR of post revolutionary France could possibly be inked to an atheistic worldview. Instead, "Atheism is just..." "Stalin was raised a Christian..." "Worshipping the 'Goddess of Reason' in Notre Dame is not connected to atheism..."

I'm an atheist (although I dislike the word and don't normally use it), and I don't see any problem with acknowledging that there is a clear link between an atheistic worldview and certain negative consequences in certain situations. None of them are just atheism, but there is a link. Obviously, I don't hold myself responsible for these, or see them as being intrinsic to atheism. Just as I don't see any negative consequences of religious belief as being intrinsic to religious belief in general.

It is true for all groups that they wish to minimalise their own ideology, so that negative points can be deflected as 'not part of my ideology' while at the same time maximising the range of ideologies they see as oppositional, giving them a better target to hit. At the same time, they all like to deny that they are doing this.

When you participate in a religious forum, and make arguments regarding atheism, you are adopting an ideological position though, and can't pretend it's just some neutral, value free classification. Acknowledging this is neither attacking atheism nor supporting theism.

 

[leibowde84]

If you say so. It seems that lumping together "disbelief" and "lack of belief" is what's erroneous, and many people don't do that lumping, whether they're theist or atheist. Frankly, the invention of these two words to begin with was a mistake. They're rubbish, worthless, useless terms.

Many outspoken atheists explicitly address their lack of an active belief that god does not or cannot exist. They aren't willing to believe either. Look at Kraus, Hitchens, and David Smally for starters. It is very commonly discussed by all of them.

 

[leibowde84]

I find it quite hard to agree that an atheist, posting on a religious debate forum, making arguments from an atheistic worldview is making 'no claims'.

The idea that you can completely abstract 'atheism' from any other context, connotation or signified meaning and turn it into a purely neutral taxonomy that is devoid of any implicit complementary meaning goes against the standard usage of language.

People will use the word 'Christian' for example, when almost no specific beliefs are uniform to all people who self identify as Christians. What can you actually say that is categorically true about all Christians?

For the vast majority of atheists, atheism is part of their ideology (Ideology defined as how someone explains to themselves the way things are and the nature of things). Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum in nice neat compartments with no cause/effect relationships and no interrelation.

Many beliefs exist as part of a continuum/matrix, so while the term Muslim conveys very little that is uniformly true about all Muslims, there is some degree of connection between all beliefs that are part of this Muslim continuum. Radical Salafism is not the same as mainstream Sunnism, many of their beliefs specifically go against orthodox Sunni jurisprudence, but we wouldn't say there is no connection between them. We don't hold them as synonymous, don't blame the average Sunni for views they don't hold, but we can admit there is some linkage between them. Most people wouldn't say that radical Salafism has nothing to do with Islam.

Atheists don't have to be materialists, humanists, communists or anti-theists, but an expression of atheism is an ideological statement. Once you have accepted that you are an atheist, this influences many subsequent decisions about the nature of existence. It doesn't per se lead to any of them, but just as there is a link between moderate religion and fundamentalist religion, there is a link between atheism and anti-theism. Just because atheism has no intrinsic link to communism, doesn't mean that an atheistic worldview didn't influence communism.

People might say 'atheism makes no claims', but when actively professed it does make claims about the nature of the world. This is especially true when it is used in the context of a specific discussion.

There seems to be an almost pathological need for many atheists to deny that there could be any link between an atheistic worldview and any negative or oppressive action carried out by an atheist. Even when it is part of an expressed ideology, as in the case of many communists for example, an atheistic worldview is never a partial cause of their behaviour. It may not have been purely atheism that caused it, but an atheistic worldview is certainly related to it.

Just as a religious belief may lead to extremism, so can an atheistic worldview. They are not synonymous, but they are related.

Many atheists here (not all), have certain sacred cows that activate a reflexive defence response if ever questioned. These tend to involve the idea that atheism frequently relates to an ideological position, that it can ever be connected to violence, or that the Enlightenment, 'science' and 'reason' can legitimately be connected to illiberal or totalitarian. ideologies.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, but that doesn't mean it never is.

Many atheists here will refuse to accept that communism has any connection to the enlightenment and that de-Christianisation of USSR of post revolutionary France could possibly be inked to an atheistic worldview. Instead, "Atheism is just..." "Stalin was raised a Christian..." "Worshipping the 'Goddess of Reason' in Notre Dame is not connected to atheism..."

I'm an atheist (although I dislike the word and don't normally use it), and I don't see any problem with acknowledging that there is a clear link between an atheistic worldview and certain negative consequences in certain situations. None of them are just atheism, but there is a link. Obviously, I don't hold myself responsible for these, or see them as being intrinsic to atheism. Just as I don't see any negative consequences of religious belief as being intrinsic to religious belief in general.

It is true for all groups that they wish to minimalise their own ideology, so that negative points can be deflected as 'not part of my ideology' while at the same time maximising the range of ideologies they see as oppositional, giving them a better target to hit. At the same time, they all like to deny that they are doing this.

When you participate in a religious forum, and make arguments regarding atheism, you are adopting an ideological position though, and can't pretend it's just some neutral, value free classification. Acknowledging this is neither attacking atheism nor supporting theism.

This is pretty out there. Using the term "Christian" to describe a certain brand of theist is exactly what I am suggesting we do with atheism. There are weak and strong atheists. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. There are plenty of subcategories. If you want to debate strong atheists, say that. In the same way you expect people to recognize you, not only as a theist, but also as a Christian.

 

[Augustus]

This is pretty out there. Using the term "Christian" to describe a certain brand of theist is exactly what I am suggesting we do with atheism. There are weak and strong atheists. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. There are plenty of subcategories. If you want to debate strong atheists, say that. In the same way you expect people to recognize you, not only as a theist, but also as a Christian.

I'm not in any way religious and never have been. Why would I wish to be identified as a Christian?

I used to be an anti-theist until I grew out of it, now I neither know nor care what classification my atheism would fit into. Trying to fragment beliefs (or lack thereof) into these nice neat categories is pretty pointless. As is pretending there are no connections between a classification I may be nominally part of, and actions that I do not support carried out by people who may also be part of this nominal classification.

 

[columbus]

If you say so. It seems that lumping together "disbelief" and "lack of belief" is what's erroneous, and many people don't do that lumping, whether they're theist or atheist. Frankly, the invention of these two words to begin with was a mistake. They're rubbish, worthless, useless terms.

This is an extremely important point. "Belief" is one of the most misused words in this discussion. Adding those just makes it worse.

I "believe" that a clear daytime sky is blue.
That isn't exactly a disbelief that it is red or yellow. It is not a belief about why it is blue. It is not the disbelief that it is a hemispherical dome over a flat creation, nor is it a claim about that. I have no burden of proof, because I am not making a claim about anything except my own observation.
It remains my belief. I am open to new information, but at my advanced age I'm not expecting anything worth the time to investigate the possibility that I am wrong about the color of the sky.

Not to pick on Christians, but telling me that Jesus Rose from the dead is exactly like telling me that the sky is sometimes yellow. Saying that I "disbelieve" is not really quite accurate.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not in any way religious and never have been. Why would I wish to be identified as a Christian?

I used to be an anti-theist until I grew out of it, now I neither know nor care what classification my atheism would fit into. Trying to fragment beliefs (or lack thereof) into these nice neat categories is pretty pointless. As is pretending there are no connections between a classification I may be nominally part of, and actions that I do not support carried out by people who may also be part of this nominal classification.

So, you agree that lack of belief is all that is required?

 

[leibowde84]

This is an extremely important point. "Belief" is one of the most misused words in this discussion. Adding those just makes it worse.

I "believe" that a clear daytime sky is blue.
That isn't exactly a disbelief that it is red or yellow. It is not a belief about why it is blue. It is not the disbelief that it is a hemispherical dome over a flat creation, nor is it a claim about that. I have no burden of proof, because I am not making a claim about anything except my own observation.
It remains my belief. I am open to new information, but at my advanced age I'm not expecting anything worth the time to investigate the possibility that I am wrong about the color of the sky.

Not to pick on Christians, but telling me that Jesus Rose from the dead is exactly like telling me that the sky is sometimes yellow. Saying that I "disbelieve" is not really quite accurate.
Tom

And, I'm not disputing that atheists have committed atrocities. I'm just saying that it is absurd to try to build some kind of causation to this general term.

 

[columbus]

And, I'm not disputing that atheists have committed atrocities. I'm just saying that it is absurd to try to build some kind of causation to this general term.

Um...Wut?
I have no idea how this is relevant to my post.
Tom

 

[leibowde84]

You seem to be assigning some arbitrary parameters as to how we come to 'believe'' things, anything, not just theism. For example, we can believe things through reason, or simply logic, our proclivity, etc. Belief is not solely determined by a standard of scientific 'proofs'. If we use the ideas of ''scientific approach'', then, some arguments are better for theism some aren't, some don't support non-theism. This is what is meant by understanding the subject.

I assure you, I am not. Specific methods are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[leibowde84]

Um...Wut?
I have no idea how this is relevant to my post.
Tom

I apologize. I responded to the wrong person.

 

[columbus]

I apologize. I responded to the wrong person.

Oh, got it.
I have a lot of trouble with the reply box myself.
Tom

 

[Cephus]

I find it quite hard to agree that an atheist, posting on a religious debate forum, making arguments from an atheistic worldview is making 'no claims'.

Why? I can get in there and discuss religion without having a religious position I hold to. That's why it's a debate forum.

The idea that you can completely abstract 'atheism' from any other context, connotation or signified meaning and turn it into a purely neutral taxonomy that is devoid of any implicit complementary meaning goes against the standard usage of language.

Nope, it is exactly how language is used. The prefix "a" means "without". Atheists are without religion. That's what the word means.

People will use the word 'Christian' for example, when almost no specific beliefs are uniform to all people who self identify as Christians. What can you actually say that is categorically true about all Christians?

They will self-identify as Christians. Nobody is forcing them to use that label.

For the vast majority of atheists, atheism is part of their ideology (Ideology defined as how someone explains to themselves the way things are and the nature of things). Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum in nice neat compartments with no cause/effect relationships and no interrelation.

Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with religious beliefs. Atheists maintain (or return to) that default position.

Many beliefs exist as part of a continuum/matrix, so while the term Muslim conveys very little that is uniformly true about all Muslims, there is some degree of connection between all beliefs that are part of this Muslim continuum. Radical Salafism is not the same as mainstream Sunnism, many of their beliefs specifically go against orthodox Sunni jurisprudence, but we wouldn't say there is no connection between them. We don't hold them as synonymous, don't blame the average Sunni for views they don't hold, but we can admit there is some linkage between them. Most people wouldn't say that radical Salafism has nothing to do with Islam.

But they have almost all adopted a basic belief structure. Almost all Muslims believe in Allah. Almost all Muslims believe in Mohammed as their prophet. Almost all Muslims accept the Qur'an as authoritative. Now find something that almost all atheists do. You won't be able to.

Atheists don't have to be materialists, humanists, communists or anti-theists, but an expression of atheism is an ideological statement. Once you have accepted that you are an atheist, this influences many subsequent decisions about the nature of existence. It doesn't per se lead to any of them, but just as there is a link between moderate religion and fundamentalist religion, there is a link between atheism and anti-theism. Just because atheism has no intrinsic link to communism, doesn't mean that an atheistic worldview didn't influence communism.

The only thing all atheists have in common is not believing in gods. That's it. There is nothing else that you can identify that is part of any atheist worldview.

People might say 'atheism makes no claims', but when actively professed it does make claims about the nature of the world. This is especially true when it is used in the context of a specific discussion.

It does nothing of the sort. It says nothing about anything. Atheists are entirely free not to accept science or anything else. Most do, certainly, but it isn't a requirement.

There seems to be an almost pathological need for many atheists to deny that there could be any link between an atheistic worldview and any negative or oppressive action carried out by an atheist. Even when it is part of an expressed ideology, as in the case of many communists for example, an atheistic worldview is never a partial cause of their behaviour. It may not have been purely atheism that caused it, but an atheistic worldview is certainly related to it.

It is what it is. Just because you don't like what it is doesn't change anything. It's funny that a lot of theists (and I'm not saying you are one) are really adamant that atheism has to be a positive position because they want to shift the burden of proof from their own lack of evidence for their own beliefs to atheists, so that when atheists do not prove that their own non-existent beliefs are true, theists can pretend that gives credence to their own unsupported beliefs. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There is no atheistic worldview, period.

Just as a religious belief may lead to extremism, so can an atheistic worldview. They are not synonymous, but they are related.

But you can't provide any significant examples for atheists, where they acted in the name of atheism, or under the command of atheism, to perform any act. It happens all the time with the religious, virtually never with atheists.

Many atheists here (not all), have certain sacred cows that activate a reflexive defence response if ever questioned. These tend to involve the idea that atheism frequently relates to an ideological position, that it can ever be connected to violence, or that the Enlightenment, 'science' and 'reason' can legitimately be connected to illiberal or totalitarian ideologies.

Correlation is not causation. It is causation when, and only when, there can be a direct and demonstrable causal link proven.

Many atheists here will refuse to accept that communism has any connection to the enlightenment and that de-Christianisation of USSR of post revolutionary France could possibly be inked to an atheistic worldview. Instead, "Atheism is just..." "Stalin was raised a Christian..." "Worshipping the 'Goddess of Reason' in Notre Dame is not connected to atheism..."

Nope. We just point out that Stalin's atheism has no direct and demonstrable causal link to what he did under communism. Nobody denies that he was an atheist, nobody has the slightest problem with it. It just didn't cause his actions. Compare that to Hitler, who was quite clear that he was a Catholic, that he acted because he believed God commanded him to wipe out the Jews, he repeatedly argued that religion caused him to do what he did, the Catholic Church supported and defended Nazism, at least until it was clear that Hitler was a complete nutball, and then they came back and smuggled Nazis out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas, but modern Christians ignore all of the evidence that proves, without a doubt, that Hitler was a Christian, or at least claimed to be a Christian and claimed that Christianity caused his actions (we can never know what went on in his head, we can only go by his words and writings) and, in fact, try to pretend that Hitler was an atheist, something there is no evidence for whatsoever. It's all about evidence.

I'm an atheist (although I dislike the word and don't normally use it), and I don't see any problem with acknowledging that there is a clear link between an atheistic worldview and certain negative consequences in certain situations. None of them are just atheism, but there is a link. Obviously, I don't hold myself responsible for these, or see them as being intrinsic to atheism. Just as I don't see any negative consequences of religious belief as being intrinsic to religious belief in general.

Then you ought to be able to demonstrate that link. Go ahead. Just claiming it doesn't make it so.

It is true for all groups that they wish to minimalise their own ideology, so that negative points can be deflected as 'not part of my ideology' while at the same time maximising the range of ideologies they see as oppositional, giving them a better target to hit. At the same time, they all like to deny that they are doing this.

But atheism is no more an ideology than not believing in Bigfoot. All of the burden of proof for Bigfoot rests on people who believe Bigfoot is real. People who don't have no responsibility to prove Bigfoot isn't real. None. At all.

When you participate in a religious forum, and make arguments regarding atheism, you are adopting an ideological position though, and can't pretend it's just some neutral, value free classification. Acknowledging this is neither attacking atheism nor supporting theism.

I see very few people making arguments regarding atheism. I never do. I make arguments against religion. I point out that they have no evidence. Until they present some, my arguments stand.

 

[Bunyip]

It is ironic and unsurprising that parallel problems plague discussions about a wide variety of topics, including theism, religion, and irreligion. That's going to happen any time one is discussing meta- terms that cover a very broad range of territories. People will cling onto the most salient manifestation of those meta- categories and use that as a basis for discussion. Frequently, the most salient is not what is representational of the category, nor what is the case of the individual one is having a discussion with in that particular moment. Apparently, it's too much work to use more precise terms in conversation.

I think it is far more simple and obvious that that - people attack nihilism/materialism and so on instead of atheism because it is easier. It is the most ancient of all propoganda tools.

If you can not refute your opponents position, simply pretend that the position you imagine you can attack is theirs and try to oblige them to defend it.

 

[Bunyip]

If that is the case for you, I don't see how "there aren't god(s)" is any less of a claim than "there are god(s)" considering both are "assertions" of "truth" and ones that are "disputed" or "doubted" by others.

Oh ok, well that is easy to clear up for you - only one of those is a positive claim and thus bea r s a burden of proof.

Going back to what I said about personal statements, if a person says "there aren't/are god(s)" and this is not disputed or doubted by themselves, nor is it being asserted to anyone other than themselves (i.e., is descriptive of what they feel and in no way intended to be prescriptive), how is that a "claim?" Doesn't seem to me that "claim" is the right word to use. Sometimes people are just stating what they feel, folks. I don't understand why there is so much cross-examination and interrogation of "there are/aren't god(s)" and yet not "I have (or don't have) a headache."

 

[Quintessence]

I think it is far more simple and obvious that that - people attack nihilism/materialism and so on instead of atheism because it is easier. It is the most ancient of all propoganda tools.

If you can not refute your opponents position, simply pretend that the position you imagine you can attack is theirs and try to oblige them to defend it.

That's making some assumptions about other people's motives and probably giving the human mind far too much credit in terms of the amount of thinking it actually does. It strikes me as more sound to surmise an explanation grounded in contemporary human psychology, of which the issue of meta- categories (more formally, "schemas") and salience (more formally, a type of "heuristic") directly relate.

Oh ok, well that is easy to clear up for you - only one of those is a positive claim and thus bea r s a burden of proof.

I honestly do not give horse pucky about "burden of proof" or who does (or does not) supposedly have it, and I think you may have missed the point of what I was getting at there.

 

[Bunyip]

That's making some assumptions about other people's motives and probably giving the human mind far too much credit in terms of the amount of thinking it actually does.

I think that it is clearly deliberate - especially given that it often persists after being corrected.

It strikes me as more sound to surmise an explanation grounded in contemporary human psychology, of which the issue of meta- categories (more formally, "schemas") and salience (more formally, a type of "heuristic") directly relate.

I honestly do not give horse pucky about "burden of proof" or who does (or does not) supposedly have it, and I think you may have missed the point of what I was getting at there.

Well I and many others DO care about the burden of proof. It may indeed not be important to you - in fact you have said that you believe anything and everything exists. Other people have different views than you do.

Whether or not God exists is an important question to many here, and critical to many atheists.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it is far more simple and obvious that that - people attack nihilism/materialism and so on instead of atheism because it is easier. It is the most ancient of all propoganda tools.

If you can not refute your opponents position, simply pretend that the position you imagine you can attack is theirs and try to oblige them to defend it.

The argument being proposed is that atheism is a non-claim. How does one present an argument against a non-claim? You need to make up your mind whether atheism is a claim or not, before any of this speculation makes sense.