What Can Atheism Lead To?

[Willamena]

Funny movie with an interesting premise (started out funny anyway). But, in what way would someone holding an "atheistic worldview" relate to that movie in your view?

The most interesting part of the movie, I found, was when they were sitting on the park bench, and he was trying to explain to her (in vain) about metaphor, without actually having a means of explaining (didn't have the words). "God" is metaphor, both in symbol (being) and use (reality). A world with "atheistic worldview" would be a world devoid of metaphor, because with the inclusion of metaphor it would be necessary (as Voltaire pointed out) to invent "God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The most interesting part of the movie, I found, was when they were sitting on the park bench, and he was trying to explain to her (in vain) about metaphor, without actually having a means of explaining (didn't have the words). "God" is metaphor, both in symbol (being) and use (reality). A world with "atheistic worldview" would be a world devoid of metaphor, because with the inclusion of metaphor it would be necessary (as Voltaire pointed out) to invent "God".

Hmm. To me, atheism implies disbelief in a literal or physical God. Why would this necessarily imply rejection of the use of God as a metaphor?

Most of us have no problem employing metaphorical concepts like "Lady Luck" or "Mother Nature" when it suits us and I haven't met an atheist yet who literally believes in any of these figures; why would God be any different?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The most interesting part of the movie, I found, was when they were sitting on the park bench, and he was trying to explain to her (in vain) about metaphor, without actually having a means of explaining (didn't have the words). "God" is metaphor, both in symbol (being) and use (reality). A world with "atheistic worldview" would be a world devoid of metaphor, because with the inclusion of metaphor it would be necessary (as Voltaire pointed out) to invent "God".

Well, I wasn't asking about a completely atheistic world, but even assuming that everyone had an "atheistic worldview," it wouldn't follow that metaphor wouldn't exist, or even that the concept of god(s) wouldn't exist - just that people wouldn't take the existence of god(s) literally. Additionally, there's no way to determine one way or the other about the necessity of the concept of god(s).

 

[Willamena]

Hmm. To me, atheism implies disbelief in a literal or physical God. Why would this necessarily imply rejection of the use of God as a metaphor?

Most of us have no problem employing metaphorical concepts like "Lady Luck" or "Mother Nature" when it suits us and I haven't met an atheist yet who literally believes in any of these figures; why would God be any different?

The best I can say to answer your question is that I find the concept of a "physical god" absurd.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

so in a completely atheistic world would individuality be discouraged? like would everybody be just like robots, programmed to function like a well-oiled machine?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

so in a completely atheistic world would individuality be discouraged? like would everybody be just like robots, programmed to function like a well-oiled machine?

In what way does atheism discourage individuality?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well one has to wonder, someone said that there'd be no need for metaphor without a god concept. Without metaphor could there be Philosophy? Take away Philosophy and a large part of individuality is gone right there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well one has to wonder, someone said that there'd be no need for metaphor without a god concept. Without metaphor could there be Philosophy? Take away Philosophy and a large part of individuality is gone right there.

Then they're wrong. It's completely absurd to suggest a world that is entirely atheist would not have any concept of metaphors - the two are entirely unrelated.

 

[MSizer]

Well one has to wonder, someone said that there'd be no need for metaphor without a god concept. Without metaphor could there be Philosophy? Take away Philosophy and a large part of individuality is gone right there.

How is that true at all? Metaphors in fact do nothing for philosphy but weaken it or make it succeptible to misinterpretation. Metaphors are used by theologians to make their vague claims seem plausible. Philosophy must be concise and clear, neither of which are not easily attained by using metaphors.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yes, but a large part of Philosophy is that we cannot know everything, so how can we understand what we don't know without using metaphors?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes, but a large part of Philosophy is that we cannot know everything, so how can we understand what we don't know without using metaphors?

If people weren't aware of the concept of god(s), how would that prevent them from understanding and using metaphors?

 

[Willamena]

Well, I wasn't asking about a completely atheistic world, but even assuming that everyone had an "atheistic worldview," it wouldn't follow that metaphor wouldn't exist, or even that the concept of god(s) wouldn't exist - just that people wouldn't take the existence of god(s) literally. Additionally, there's no way to determine one way or the other about the necessity of the concept of god(s).

That's what I mean, though --if metaphor can exist then it would be "necessary to invent God" in that a symbol is (absolutely) required to express the idea held therein --the idea of symbol-less, idealess, expressionless, wordless existence "beyond". And once the metaphorical God is included in the worldview (an image of "God" along with what that image means) then that's no longer an atheistic worldview.

 

[MSizer]

Yes, but a large part of Philosophy is that we cannot know everything...

No it's not. That's one single idea, which is probably true. That's all it is.

so how can we understand what we don't know without using metaphors?

Metaphors don't make us understand things we don't know. Scientific analysis does. When was the last time NASA used a metaphor to figure out the distance of a galaxy, or the last time a brewing company used a metaphor to calculate the sugar content of a sample of beer? Never I hope!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's what I mean, though --if metaphor can exist then it would be "necessary to invent God" in that a symbol is (absolutely) required to express the idea held therein --the idea of symbol-less, idealess, expressionless, wordless existence "beyond". And once the metaphorical God is included in the worldview (an image of "God" along with what that image means) then that's no longer an atheistic worldview.

So, if you even so much as use God as a metaphor - even if you don't believe that such a God exists - then you're not an atheist? And, by extension, atheism doesn't exist at all since all atheists have to have a general concept of God in order to not believe in it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's what I mean, though --if metaphor can exist then it would be "necessary to invent God" in that a symbol is (absolutely) required to express the idea held therein --the idea of symbol-less, idealess, expressionless, wordless existence "beyond". And once the metaphorical God is included in the worldview (an image of "God" along with what that image means) then that's no longer an atheistic worldview.

People could certainly hold the idea of "symbol-less, idealess, expressionless, wordless existence "beyond," without attaching it to the idea of god(s). If you're saying that that is a description of what god is, then you're certainly not using a standard definition of god, nor what it is that atheists do not hold a belief in. I have no problem understanding god as a metaphor, or the idea of a "wordless existence beyond," but it in no way prevents me from being an atheist.

 

[Willamena]

So, if you even so much as use God as a metaphor - even if you don't believe that such a God exists - then you're not an atheist? And, by extension, atheism doesn't exist at all since all atheists have to have a general concept of God in order to not believe in it?

If you don't believe in the metaphor you're employing, then you're just speaking nonsense.

 

[Willamena]

People could certainly hold the idea of "symbol-less, idealess, expressionless, wordless existence "beyond," without attaching it to the idea of god(s). If you're saying that that is a description of what god is, then you're certainly not using a standard definition of god, nor what it is that atheists do not hold a belief in. I have no problem understanding god as a metaphor, but it in no way prevents me from being an atheist.

Ah, but I'm not talking about "the idea of god(s)". I'm talking about "God".

Understanding the metaphor is what makes me an atheist.

 

[MSizer]

If you don't believe in the metaphor you're employing, then you're just speaking nonsense.

How is the following nonsense:

"Unicorns are gods of the animal kingdom."

Do I believe it to be true? No. Is it nonsense? I don't think so.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ah, but I'm not talking about "the idea of god(s)". I'm talking about "God".

Understanding the metaphor is what makes me an atheist.

Describe the metaphor that you're understanding, and what it's a metaphor for.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you don't believe in the metaphor you're employing, then you're just speaking nonsense.

You've not answered my question. Are you equating having a concept (or "meaphor") of God as being the same as believing in a God or, in your words, lacking an atheistic worldview?