Thoughts on Atheism

[Mohsen]

Do you expect every discussion on a religious forum to define god first?

I personally think it’s the smart thing to do.

God has to be defined as there are multiple belief systems which define Him in ways that contradict each other... you may find that a certain definition of what God is may align to the atheist understanding of what God might be, should He exist for the atheist at some point!

Peace

 

[Vouthon]

Whats a Christian Atheist?

It refers to an atheist who comes from a society with a Christian cultural heritage and identifies with the matrix of values, ethos and traditions of this background, without having any religious faith or belief in the supernatural. The 'Christian Atheist' runs a broad spectrum from people who are very hostile towards organised religion, to those who actively take part in religious services for the community/cultural aspects while not believing in a god.

Richard Dawkins is an example of the former kind of 'Christian Atheist':

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Prof Dawkins said atheists were not a threat to Christian traditions

Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

Professor Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, added that he liked "singing Carols along with everybody else".

Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

"If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."
​

Dawkins has even wore this T-shirt:

 

[ChristineM]

I'm going to share some thoughts on atheism in this thread. I expect it will throw up some unexpected responses because my views on atheism are NOT representative of many atheists on the forum. It may be useful nonetheless to share and see how things go.

Firstly, Atheism is (for me) the explicit rejection of the existence of god. the reason for this is that god is something that is not and cannot be observed, but is instead inferred by an intellectual error. I realise that is not a view widely held on RF, with most atheists professing a "lack of belief" and I respect many differences arise from that.

Second, this particular variety of Atheism is, in a sense, dogmatic and a "faith". There isn't absolute categorical proof for the validity of this view and many would dispute that as a basis for legitimate belief. If all belief is the product of man and is therefore as finite as man's experience, both within their individual lifetime and the historical accumulation of experience. There is no god and no omniscience. There is no absolute standard of truth or knowledge. Much of the problem of scepticism is that is seeks for absolute where there cannot be one. It continues to inherit a belief in absolute conviction from religion, when in fact none is possible. knowledge is finite and imperfect, as a product and a reflection of its human creators.

Third, Atheism entails a worldview and is in a sense a "religion", in that rejecting god means rejecting the idea of creation. If God traditionally performed the role of "creator" of nature, society and morality, these things have to be re-evaluated until we reach an atheistic worldview. Atheism is therefore not a singular isolated statement about whether god exists or not, but is a broader philosophical conception about how man, nature and society exist without a deity.

Fourth, Atheism therefore has the risk of nihilism. If there is no god, because god is a creator, it brings into question the very source of creation. It brings about questions of the nature of meaning and purpose of existence, of our own sense of importance and our role in the universe. This is not an inevitable result of such atheism, but is certainly a factor when realising the necessity for man creating his own values.

Fourth, there is no "a-historical" atheism. one of the things that comes up a great deal when people try to define atheism is they reach for the dictionary. This however fails to take into account that how we define words, logic, standards of truth and knowledge, are all ultimately products of history and are historically relative to the times they live in. There is therefore no "eternal" atheism. atheism has evolved though history and will continue to evolve. people who believe that "logic" validates atheism fail to take into account that logic is also the product of men's minds and of historical evolution. logic is at least in part relative and subjective even if it may have an objective content for understanding the relationship between things and properties.

Finally, atheism means the possibility of self-deification. If man created god, he projected his own humanity into the divine. There is no absolute separation between the "human" and the "divine". In a sense therefore, man can live in the pursuit of an absolute but can never attain it. Man can aspire to be gods, increasing human powers of creation (and destruction) as a source of meaning and purpose. However human being will never become gods in an absolute sense, but the pursuit of a "purer" or "fuller" expression of the meaning of humanity is what is meaningful in life. In creating ourselves, we possess and exercise the divine power of creation.

As any thread on atheism is by definition controversial, I will make a disclaimer that these are my views on atheism and are NOT meant to tell other atheists what they are or believe. Atheism is not a single monolithic idea, but is a conclusion that can be reached by several paths. Most Atheists on RF will do so by a "lack of belief" based on a "lack of evidence" for god and therefore withhold belief. That is not how I understand or experience my own atheism however.

Any Thoughts or Suggestions? Anything you'd want me to clarify?

Although your points have validity i contest your first and second points because i believe there are several proofs that discount gods or aspects of a god.

As for no historical atheism, no person is ever born having belief in god. And eternal is a religious concept and really has no bearing on atheism.

Your final point i see as a contradiction.

its your last paragraph that hits the nail on the head. There as many descriptions (note not definitions) of atheism as there are atheists.

 

[ChristineM]

It refers to an atheist (somebody who either rejects belief in a deity or sees no evidence for belief in any god) who comes from a society with a Christian cultural heritage and identifies with the matrix of values, ethos and traditions of this background, without having any religious faith or belief in the supernatural. The 'Christian Atheist' runs a broad spectrum from people who are very hostile towards organised religion, to those who actively take part in religious services for the community/cultural aspects while not believing in God.

Richard Dawkins is an example of the former kind of 'Christian Atheist':

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Prof Dawkins said atheists were not a threat to Christian traditions

Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

Professor Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, added that he liked "singing Carols along with everybody else".

Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

"If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."
​

Loath as i am to quote the daily mail there are numerous other sources but the headline of the mail is more apt.

Dawkins is self admittedly an agnostic rather than an athiest

Career atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic | Daily Mail Online

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Intellectual superiority? But you'd have rebutted such an insubstantial claim with an intellectually watertight definition of a real god, and followed it with a satisfactory demonstration of one, no? And you'd still be enjoying the last laugh!

What's the problem?

Very true! not a problem, just an observation

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Firstly, Atheism is (for me) the explicit rejection of the existence of god. the reason for this is that god is something that is not and cannot be observed, but is instead inferred by an intellectual error. I realise that is not a view widely held on RF, with most atheists professing a "lack of belief" and I respect many differences arise from that.

So do you reject all gods, or are you making your beliefs about one particular god?

If you're only rejecting one god, then I'd say you're adhering to the "lack of belief" definition yourself.

Remember: saying that atheism is the lack of belief in gods does not mean that atheists can't reject gods. It just means that if you do reject certain gods, you're going beyond what is strictly required to be an atheist.

Second, this particular variety of Atheism is, in a sense, dogmatic and a "faith". There isn't absolute categorical proof for the validity of this view and many would dispute that as a basis for legitimate belief. If all belief is the product of man and is therefore as finite as man's experience, both within their individual lifetime and the historical accumulation of experience. There is no god and no omniscience. There is no absolute standard of truth or knowledge. Much of the problem of scepticism is that is seeks for absolute where there cannot be one. It continues to inherit a belief in absolute conviction from religion, when in fact none is possible. knowledge is finite and imperfect, as a product and a reflection of its human creators.

There's no rule that says that you as an atheist can't have faith in things, but what makes your beliefs a "particular variety of atheism" rather than just beliefs held by an atheist?

Finally, atheism means the possibility of self-deification.

Well, no.

I thought the one thing we would have agreed on is that people who believe in gods aren't atheists. Someone who believes that a god exists and that god is him is, by definition, not an atheist.

 

[blü 2]

Very true! not a problem, just an observation

Well done!

What's that definition, by the way?

 

[Erebus]

Thank you for taking the time to post this @Laika it made for an interesting read. I feel that there's plenty here that we would agree and disagree on if we were to debate some of these points. For the moment though, I'd certainly be interested to see your response to this:

I thought the one thing we would have agreed on is that people who believe in gods aren't atheists. Someone who believes that a god exists and that god is him is, by definition, not an atheist.

I'm inclined to agree with @9-10ths_Penguin here. Autotheism, while certainly not the most common expression of theism, still accepts the existence of a god. Therefore I struggle to see it as compatible with atheism in much the same way I would consider even the most scientifically minded pantheist to still be a theist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something that needs added to the opening post:

How do you define "god?"

Both the terms "atheist" and "theist" are meaningless without defining that word.

My take on it is that when we're defining these terms, we generally base them on the believer's - not the describer's - own views.

For instance, if we take, say, a Pagan polytheist and a Muslim, we can call the Pagan a polytheist and the Muslim a monotheist despite the fact that the angels that the Muslim believes in could very well qualify as gods by the definition the Pagan is using.

As a third party looking in, I go by what each of the people regards as "gods" without trying to apply a single coherent definition of "god" - or what *I* would consider a god - to both of them. The Pagan believes that his pantheon consists of gods, so that makes him a polytheist; the Muslim believes that only Allah is a god, so he's a monotheist. What I don't do is say that because the Pagan's gods don't meet the Muslim's definition of "gods", the Pagan is an atheist.

IMO, this is how most people use the terms.

 

[atanu]

...
Atheism is not a rejection of the existence of god as you state, it is only a recognition of the absence of any evidence for a god.

Although I know that this discussion does not end and is entirely futile, I point to the fact that to know the absence of evidence for a god, you first need to precisely know what that is. Then only you can recognise absence of that god. This amounts to rejection of the existence of god.

Science it's called.

Thanks.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I personally think it’s the smart thing to do.

God has to be defined as there are multiple belief systems which define Him in ways that contradict each other... you may find that a certain definition of what God is may align to the atheist understanding of what God might be, should He exist for the atheist at some point!

Peace

Sure. I happily acknowledge the real existence of plenty of things that theists of various stripes hold out as gods: the Sun, Haille Selassie, Julius Caesar, etc.

But you want to have one definition of "god"... to what end, even if it's just for the purposes of one conversation?

I like to use the example of divine messengers: Mercury/Hermes is a god; the Archangel Gabriel/Jibreel isn't. I've never been able to find any reasonable criterion to justify this distinction; they're just the product of different cultures with different ideas of "god."

So let's say you pick a definition for "god" and thereby declare either Greek polytheists or Christians wrong. What purpose will it have served to assume a definition of "god" that implies people who believe in traditional Greek religion are atheists, or that Christians are polytheists? What have you done besides create a conflict with one group or the other?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well done!

What's that definition, by the way?

As a skeptic of atheism, I make no claim- I simply lack belief in spontaneous universe creating mechanisms until proven otherwise

(and default to the obvious alternative meanwhile)

 

[blü 2]

As a skeptic of atheism, I make no claim

That's a pity. Seems to me that definition of 'god' useful to reasoned enquiry is an indispensable prerequisite to any argument in favor of theism.

I simply lack belief in spontaneous universe creating mechanisms until proven otherwise

And I simply lack belief in magic and its subset, miracles, until someone comes up with a satisfactory demonstration and a testable hypothesis on how it works.

And so far, no one's gone close.

 

[Laika]

If I found a real equine animal with a natural single straight horn on its forehead, which, with humans, would only consent to being approached by virgin females and, perhaps optionally, was white, I could, after a satisfactory vet inspection, say, "That's a unicorn".

For God to be real, [he] must have objective existence, must exist independently of any brain holding the concept of [him]. Otherwise at best [he]'s imaginary.

But God has no description as a real being, no physical attributes, at all. So unlike the unicorn, there's no coherent concept of a real god. More, since this fact passes unremarked among believers, it' appears they don't think of God as real anyway. That is, God's a mental construct, not a real being at all.

Just by calling it a car you evoke a fully intelligible concept of a real physical object, one with objective existence.

The correct analogy for God would be, say, the absence of anything in particular. To encounter that will not normally be a problem, no matter how fast I'm traveling.

Whilst God may not have immediately observable properties equivalent to "the car hits you", god is supposed to either intervene in the natural order or create it. In the case of Judaism, god gave moses the ten commandments, brought about Noah's flood (as well as intructing noah to build the ark) and killed the first borns of egypt. If god existed the same things "should" be happening now but either aren't, or we don't recognise them as such if they do.

To use the car analogy again, if it's driving at us and we have no knowledge of the internal combustion engine, we may give a false reasoning why its moving towards us. Perhaps its momentum is driven by invisible horses if you were someone who assumed a man-made vehicle would be horse drawn. We could say that getting hit by the car was god's will and an "act of god", because god created the car to run over sinners.

my point is that even if god itself may not be observable, belief in god hinges on treating observable properties or processes as the result of god. If we say those processes are all are natural, god is no longer necessary as an explanation and belief in god as a "first cause" is superseded by belief in natural causes.

So do you reject all gods, or are you making your beliefs about one particular god?

If you're only rejecting one god, then I'd say you're adhering to the "lack of belief" definition yourself.

Remember: saying that atheism is the lack of belief in gods does not mean that atheists can't reject gods. It just means that if you do reject certain gods, you're going beyond what is strictly required to be an atheist..

I reject all gods. Obviously I have a cultural bias for the Christian God as the one I'm most familiar with, but I believe the premises necessary for rejecting the christian god would logically also reject every other god.

There's no rule that says that you as an atheist can't have faith in things, but what makes your beliefs a "particular variety of atheism" rather than just beliefs held by an atheist?

The reason I'd say this is a particular variety of atheism is the fact that it's reliance on natural causes makes it a worldview, and hence is potentially a "closed" system of belief that is atheist. I don't believe the differences between me and other atheists are accidental, but are infact a result of the same premises. (i.e. materialism).

Well, no.

I thought the one thing we would have agreed on is that people who believe in gods aren't atheists. Someone who believes that a god exists and that god is him is, by definition, not an atheist.

Self-deficiation is not literal in the sense of man becoming omnipotence, omnipresent or omniscient, etc. I can't walk on water, although I might be able to invent a pair of hover shoes that could do that eventually. Even if I could, the ability to walk on water would never be absolte (in the "godly" sense) but would always operate within physical laws and our technological ability to utilitse them.

If God doesn't exist, then man created god. Man is the source of religious belief and of religious values. Man created the sense of the sacred and the divine as a means of evaluating ideas, so it is possible that man could treat man as "sacred" as in having high value and being a source of meaning and purpose in life. (logically, the reverse would also be true that man decides what is "demonic" and can demonise other human beings).

Thank you for taking the time to post this @Laika it made for an interesting read. I feel that there's plenty here that we would agree and disagree on if we were to debate some of these points. For the moment though, I'd certainly be interested to see your response to this:



I'm inclined to agree with @9-10ths_Penguin here. Autotheism, while certainly not the most common expression of theism, still accepts the existence of a god. Therefore I struggle to see it as compatible with atheism in much the same way I would consider even the most scientifically minded pantheist to still be a theist.

My reply (above) to 9-10th_Penguin should clarify that I mean ways of assigning "sacred" or "divine" value to man rather than treating human beings as literally gods. Even if there was no god, man still retains the ability to assign values as if they were sacred or divine (or demonic as the case may be).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's a pity. Seems to me that definition of 'god' useful to reasoned enquiry is an indispensable prerequisite to any argument in favor of theism.

And I simply lack belief in magic and its subset, miracles, until someone comes up with a satisfactory demonstration and a testable hypothesis on how it works.

And so far, no one's gone close.

I'd call the rabbit spontaneously appearing in the hat for no reason; 'magic'

And someone simply putting it there on purpose; the less improbable explanation

Creative intelligence gives us that power of explanation.

How does it work? Nobody is quite sure,- call it a miracle if you will, and we would agree on that. But we know that it does exist, it is demonstrable, you are using it right now.

And that is more than we can say for the Flying Spaghetti Multiverse!

 

[blü 2]

Whilst God may not have immediately observable properties equivalent to "the car hits you", god is supposed to either intervene in the natural order or create it.

That happens in the stories. I'm talking about finding a real god, a god with objective existence, a non-imaginary god, a non-mental-construct god.

To use the car analogy again, if it's driving at us and we have no knowledge of the internal combustion engine, we may give a false reasoning why its moving towards us.

Why what is moving towards us, exactly?

I reject all gods.

I probably will too if I ever find out what real thing the word is intended to correspond to.

If God doesn't exist, then man created god.

Indeed, created each and every god there's ever been and will be.

 

[Erebus]

Self-deficiation is not literal in the sense of man becoming omnipotence, omnipresent or omniscient, etc. I can't walk on water, although I might be able to invent a pair of hover shoes that could do that eventually. Even if I could, the ability to walk on water would never be absolte (in the "godly" sense) but would always operate within physical laws and our technological ability to utilitse them.

If God doesn't exist, then man created god. Man is the source of religious belief and of religious values. Man created the sense of the sacred and the divine as a means of evaluating ideas, so it is possible that man could treat man as "sacred" as in having high value and being a source of meaning and purpose in life. (logically, the reverse would also be true that man decides what is "demonic" and can demonise other human beings).



My reply (above) to 9-10th_Penguin should clarify that I mean ways of assigning "sacred" or "divine" value to man rather than treating human beings as literally gods. Even if there was no god, man still retains the ability to assign values as if they were sacred or divine (or demonic as the case may be).

Okay, I think I follow you here. So you would argue that self-deification is essentially to liken yourself to a god rather than view yourself as a god. Would that be a fair assessment?

 

[blü 2]

I'd call the rabbit spontaneously appearing in the hat for no reason; 'magic'

No, that's stage magic. I'm referring to the concept of actual magic, such as creating the EM spectrum with the magic word 'Light!' and fetching a cold can from the fridge without rising from your chair with 'Accio beer!' In other words, altering reality independently of the rules of physics, usually by wishing.

Creative intelligence gives us that power of explanation.

But such an hypothesis is unnecessary, and anyway no such 'creative intelligence' has ever been demonstrated.

But we know that it does exist, it is demonstrable, you are using it right now.

Nope. I'm using my biological brain right now. It's completely physical, which is why it alters function, malfunctions or stops functioning altogether when physical things happen to it ─ alcohol, caffeine, other drugs, disease, trauma, stress, stroke, &c. (If it were magical instead, these things wouldn't fuss it.)

 

[Laika]

Okay, I think I follow you here. So you would argue that self-deification is essentially to liken yourself to a god rather than view yourself as a god. Would that be a fair assessment?

yeah. that is fair.

 

[Erebus]

yeah. that is fair.

That makes sense to me I understood "self-deification" in a slightly different way going into this so thank you for the clarification.