Thoughts on Atheism

[blü 2]

As is universe created in a short time.

The BB occurred in a very short time. Is that what you have in mind? If not, what, exactly?

Evidence can include logic.

No, first you have evidence, and then you reason ─ apply logic ─ to the evidence and frame your argument accordingly.

Hence, i'm not "guessing" but rather using the evidence that we have.

The evidence I mentioned? Or what, specifically?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism leads to Communism.

Tell that to the Hutterites.

And the Mennonites.

And the Amish.

And the Shakers.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I’m wondering, are atheists people who haven’t found God yet?
I am guessing that some atheists become non atheists over time.
Just wondering, no actual knowledge.
Also, another wierd thought.
If atheists believe there is no God, wouldn’t they be better off than those who believe in a false god?

Two/thirds of atheists are ex-Christians.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sometimes we get bogged down in formalism, eg, the existence of gods cannot be disproven.
But I know in my bones that there are no gods....I just cannot claim certainty.

It seems to me that there is a dire need for embracing ignosticism.

Not in you particularly, but in most people, if only to put some sense back in to what is ultimately a nearly meaningless "dispute" about the supposed existence of a very nebulous concept.

By treating "god" as a very meaningful concept when it is anything but, we end up confusing the field quite a lot.

Atheism means very little indeed, mostly because it is defined simply by contrast with the nearly as insignificant ideas of "god" and "theism".

 

[siti]

..."dispute" about the supposed existence of a very nebulous concept.

If that's what the discussion is about then I am definitely a believer - I have seen numerous manifestations of "nebulous concepts" with my own eyes - even (especially) here on RF - and they definitely exist.

 

[siti]

I agree with much of what you say, but I've yet to meet an atheist who does not explicitly claim intellectual superiority...

Are you sure that isn't personal?

 

[Laika]

That's quite a feat.


Which premises are those?

How did you come to the conclusion that you could use these premises to reject every god? I'm especially interested to hear how you figured out that they apply even to the gods you've never heard of..

Materialism basically. Every God is essentially a form of consciousness that is no a product of matter. That is consistent through out. So if I believe in materialism, I don't believe in all gods.

of course, materialism says nature is uniform and everything, known and unknown, obeys natural laws and that's where the "faith" and "dogma" part kick in. I can believe that, but there is no way of knowing that absolutely. its just something you live with.

Except this isn't true at all. Atheists who believe in the supernatural are still atheists.

And even if you are an atheist, it seems to me like you may still be stuck in a theistic mindset if you think that merely not sharing certain beliefs that presuppose a god or gods is enough to qualify the people who don't share those beliefs as having a common "worldview."

Do you also say that all theists share a single worldview?

I used the word "this" particular variety of atheism, so I wasn't specifically referring to all atheists, just me and maybe people like me.

There may be a fundamental similarities between theists (conscious can exist independently of matter) but that is not the same as saying that all share a single worldview. They probably have many even with such a similarity.

Right: and it would be theists who buy into that, not atheists.


Values, meaning, & sacredness don't have to have anything to do with gods or divinity. Again, I think you're stuck in a theistic mindset.

Well, as I have said I have a faith, dogma and religion already, I shouldn't be too embarrassed to concede the substance of a "theistic" mindset is there even if there are no god(s) in my worldview. Would you be more comfortable saying this is something like its a religious kind of atheism like Buddhism? Buddhism has a theistic mindset but is still atheist?

This thread was mainly meant to find "someway" to co-exist with other atheists on RF despite the obvious differences, so I'm open to possibilities at this point. It has been a source of considerable friction and it would be good to find ways to move past it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I used the word "this" particular variety of atheism, so I wasn't specifically referring to all atheists, just me and maybe people like me.

I think this is where your way of thinking seems to me almost completely incoherent.

To me, describing atheistic materialism as "a variety of atheism" seems just as backward as describing a red car as "a variety of redness." IMO, it makes no sense.

 

[corynski]

Atheism leads to Communism. What you stated is the abstract concept of atheism and that in which leads to Communism. It purports to understand all that we need to know about the world and universe and gives us a false sense of security and power. Communism must eliminate religion, morality and philosophy first. Humans and their science along with nature can do it all. It's explained in The Communist Manifesto.

No, I don't think atheism 'leads' to communism..... but in the absence of religion, there must be other organizations to assume the functions of religion. Atheism does not 'purport to understand all that we need to know about the world' as you suggest, it simply says that there is no evidence for any gods or goddesses. Communism may want to eliminate religion but never will, as it appears new gods are constantly created by those who insist they must exist.

 

[corynski]

>>but is instead inferred by an intellectual error.<<

Why couldn't you or the typical atheist be the one making an intellectual error?

>>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.<<

I would agree with this. Most atheists think this is all there is and all there will be. Also, I'm glad you admitted that your's and the atheist's worldview is a religion and based on faith, too.

>>In creating ourselves, we possess and exercise the divine power of creation.<<

What do you mean by we create ourselves?

You seem to assume that the act of creation did not happen. We do not actually create ourselves, but reproduce sexually. The first man and woman and the ability to reproduce sexually did not just happen. If you think this is not the case, then create something simpler. For example, a new flower for us.

Next, I thought you were referring to Darwin and evolution, but I don't believe we descended from apes and ape-men or a common ancestor. Otherwise, there would be many fossils of ape-men and other transitional fossils and ape-men would still be happening, i.e. a preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, it's scientific racism to say we descended from apes.

Moreover, if humans did evolve, then we would have made guns to protect ourselves. However, there is a movement by atheists (liberals) to control guns, i.e. get rid of guns, which goes against Darwin's evolution. Why the discrepancy?

Finally, the sceptism on creationists part is that atheists seem to believe they can create a universe or living things just by believing in it. There is no such evidence because if living things were created by nature or humans, then we would be seeing it all the time. What it shows scientifically is that creation does not happen, but is hybridization or genetic modification.

James Bond....... This comment you made: "Finally, the sceptism on creationists part is that atheists seem to believe they can create a universe or living things just by believing in it.", is simply wrong, and suggests you have no knowledge of atheism. It is the religious believers who create gods and goddesses by simply believing in them. As is readily apparent by reviewing a copy of Marjorie Leache's book 'Guide to the Gods',1992, which lists over 800 pages of gods created by humans. Christians especially seem to think the world began with their 'god', a couple of thousand years ago, because their 'book' tells them so, which only shows a lack of research and study..... hardly surprising since Americans are brainwashed from birth by Christianity. Christians do not live in the 'real' world if that is any news to anyone......

 

[Willamena]

I think this is where your way of thinking seems to me almost completely incoherent.

To me, describing atheistic materialism as "a variety of atheism" seems just as backward as describing a red car as "a variety of redness." IMO, it makes no sense.

Atheism is a set of beliefs, redness is a property. They hardly compare.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is a set of beliefs, redness is a property. They hardly compare.

No, atheism isn't a set of beliefs. Atheism is the property of not possessing theistic beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

No, atheism isn't a set of beliefs. Atheism is the property of not possessing theistic beliefs.

How is something so inessential a property?

 

[PureX]

An unsure theist still leans towards theism.
And agnostic not at all, or very much less so.

I am an agnostic theist. I have no way of knowing if gods exist, or not. Yet I choose to believe that a god of my own understanding does exist, not based on knowledge (because I am agnostic), but based on the positive results of faith in my experience of life.

Agnosticism is not tied to theism or atheism. It's tied to the understanding that we lack sufficient knowledge of gods to determine their nature and existence. That doesn't stop us from choosing to believe or disbelieve in gods, however, as we can do so based on other criteria besides knowledge: biased skepticism in the case of atheism, and biased faith in the case of theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How is something so inessential a property?

Come again?

 

[PureX]

No, atheism isn't a set of beliefs. Atheism is the property of not possessing theistic beliefs.

Then atheism is a "non-existent property". Which is an incoherent proposition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then atheism is a "non-existent property". Which is an incoherent proposition.

If you can figure out the idea of a smoke-free hotel room, non-GMO food, or other descriptions of things based on characteristics they don't have, then I'm confident that if you give it enough thought, you'll be able to comprehend the idea of atheism.

 

[PureX]

If you can figure out the idea of a smoke-free hotel room, non-GMO food, or other descriptions of things based on characteristics they don't have, then I'm confident that if you give it enough thought, you'll be able to comprehend the idea of atheism.

All non-existent properties. And all philosophically incoherent.

What you don't assert, and cannot defend, philosophically, is irrelevant, moot, and pointless. I believe you will be able to comprehend, then, this characterization of your "atheism".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All non-existent properties. And all philosophically incoherent.

If you think that "smoke-free hotel room" is incoherent, then your problems are deeper than can be fixed by a conversation on an Internet forum.

What you don't assert, and cannot defend, philosophically, is irrelevant, moot, and pointless. I believe you will be able to comprehend, then, this characterization of your "atheism".

We don't live in a vacuum. Atheism would be irrelevant if it wasn't for the theistic environment we find ourselves in.

But yes: it would be a lot more productive if theists wanted to engage with me about the positions I actually hold (humanism, skepticism, freethought, secularism, dislike of ABBA, etc.) instead of harping on about why I haven't gotten on board with their own particular worldview as if everything that isn't how they think may as well be all the same.

 

[Mohsen]

Which is fine if the topic is of comparative religion. And if the agenda was of genuinely curiousity.

Do you think an atheist really cares that there could exist many gods when all his reasoning to not believe in one God is true for any number of gods? Not to mention mythical beings and other unobserved figures?

Yes I do! An atheist may refer to a ultra cosmic force outside of the space and time continuum, ie outside this universe - and this force I may refer to as God !!! By the same token, a Christian defining a grandpa like figure who sits in clouds would be rejected by myself and the atheist - this is why it is a good idea to define the theology behind the claim!

Peace