Why atheism entails the possibility of God

[Unveiled Artist]

You'd have to quote me and re-read my post.

Okay. I'm bored. My short answer: No, atheist doesn't entail the possibility of god. Atheism says belief god does not exist. Any other definition is not atheism.

Atheism isn't a mental attitude. It's strict disbelief in the existence of god. Someone's lifestyle, cultural outlook, worldview, and religion has nothing to do with it.

No, you're adding unessential features. The one, essential feature of any form of atheism is lack of belief in God/Gods.

True, there are atheists who believe that god definitely does not exist, and there are atheists with various scientific or ethical convictions, but these are not essential features. All it takes is lack of belief. All the rest is extraneous.​

There are no extras. It's just simple lack of belief in god. Whatever else people want to put into it depends on their culture, upbringing, and all of that.

Atheism says disbelief in god
Materialism says things exist without the spiritual

How does one relate to the other?​

They don't. That's my point.

 

[McBell]

That's got to be the most complex and involved definition of atheism I've ever seen -- and it doesn't seem to define atheism at all.

I am glad that the words "may be defined" are included in the definition

 

[McBell]

Atheism says belief god does not exist. Any other definition is not atheism.

This is just plain false.

Atheism isn't a mental attitude. It's strict disbelief in the existence of god.

Wrong again

 

[lewisnotmiller]

American Atheists don't seem representative of atheists nor would I have agreed with their definitions when I was atheist.

Exactly what my response was going to be, apart from the fact I still am an atheist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They believe in a specific type of creation story for the universe and life, driven by unguided, automated, processes- with a whole slew of implications for ethics, lifestyle etc.

How would you define this belief?

Atheism is an umbrella term, same as theism. Unless you think all theistic creation stories are the same or something?

 

[Laika]

Laika, I think you must be about the only person in the world who can or is willing to say what you've said in these two sentences after beginning with "As a materialist . . ." (Why are you practically unique in this way? That is, how did you get to be practically unique in this way?)

I just wish to add one thing. You use the term "material laws of causality" as though it's unproblematic. Matter is, of course, any object that has mass and volume. The idea that all effects are caused by the impacting of objects that have mass and volume was refuted even before the development of general and special relativity and QM. Energy, which is a quantity, and which no one has ever seen or touched, has been an integral part of the theories of physics since at least the mid-19th century. The law of the conservation of energy was proven by theorem prior to the advent of QM (see Noether's Theorem). In a way, the thesis of classical materialism died with Newton.

Lol. Many thanks for that nous. That made me smile.

I have the benifit of being a dialectical materialist (i.e. The marxist variety). As its a worldview, its about fitting new data into an intellectual system so I don't find it that threatening. Its just I've got some pieces of a puzzle that don't fit in very neatly. I've also got alot of sources and history to go back and get inspiration from (though in this area not as much as I'd like). I can go back and look at soviet physics and read about the discussions they had on the subject and then figure out what my options are to fit the pieces of the puzzle in. Its alot of work but basically its trial and error. These are some of the questions most dangerous to the intellectual "system" but they're ones that are going to take alot of time to understand because they are heavy on philosophy and science- so I just keep going.

As For your second point- Lenin defined matter as "objective reality given to us by sensation". He had the recent discoveries of physics in mind as they challanged the idea of irreduciable particles or "atoms" as conceptions of matter. In lenin's view Newtons "mechanical" materialism was superceded by Marx's "dialectical" materialism in terms of understanding nature, matter and causality. the latter accounted for effects not directly produced by external interaction with an object as a cause due to "internal contradiction" as a cause. I.e. In terms of the physics thats arguing that there is causality at the quantum level but we don't understand it yet due to philosophical problems. (My knowledge is vague but I'm pretty certian thats a radical position).

By redefining matter Lenin seperated the definition of matter from its structure and so materialism was no longer threatened by discoveries in physics that could lead to the "dissappearence of matter" (i.e. The ability for matter to convert into energy, or that atoms are mainly "nothing" so reality is indistinguishable from "nothing"). There are some big questions as to whether that definition is correct in terms of the marxist theory of knowledge but the physics of it are just one more piece in the puzzle.

 

[David T]

Here's an essay I wrote a few years ago. Sorry its a bit long - but feel free to tear my argument to shreds...

The following partial definitions of atheism and materialism are taken from the American Atheists web pages:

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose…​

I think the partial definition of materialism quoted is a denial of the very means by which the author has constructed the definition. That, I think, is the fundamental problem of atheistic materialism – it fails to account for the inherent purposiveness and creativeness that its proponents quite deliberately employ in order to formulate and express the principles of their own “mental attitude”.

We know, from even casual observation, that, “the whole” is often, if not always, “greater than the sum of its parts” – that is holistic emergence. It happens, so obviously as to be almost unremarkable, at every level of reality we have yet observed. A trio of lonely quarks choreograph their dance to form the original ménage-a-trois, in the process creating a new, emergent level of reality with properties that are unpredictable from the observation of quarks in isolation (if that were even possible). The three become one – a proton, and they are quickly joined by a fourth quark, an electron, who never quite makes it into the inner love triangle but is content to waltz around the periphery giving rise to another novel emergence – a hydrogen atom.

Two of these join together with another more complex atom, oxygen, to form a water molecule and billions of these cooperate to give rise to yet another emergent property not implicit in the underlying level – liquidity. Is the propensity for water (and other molecules) to form liquids under certain conditions an immanent property of the underlying, more fundamental reality, or is it an emergent property that arises from the complexity of the ratios and relationships between the component “particles”?

We could trace the course of emergence onward and upward through the various levels of reality from atoms and molecules, via cells and organs, to organisms, communities and biospheres. At each higher level, higher level functions and properties emerge that correspond approximately to information (data), communication, signal-processing and eventually consciousness and mind. And we must then ask the same question – is the propensity for complex organisms to develop consciousness and mind an inherent, immanent property of the underlying levels of reality, or does it emerge from the complexity of the system?

But at this level, the question takes on a more significant import. If we say consciousness and mind are inherent and implicit in the sub-structure of the universe that gave rise to them, we are subscribing to a kind of panpsychism. If we say it is emergent from the complexity of the system, then why stop there? Why insist that the universe that gave birth to human intelligence is, in its entirety, nothing more than the simple sum of the nuts and bolts it is made of when there is abundant evidence to prove that almost everything that it is made of is so much more than the sum of the component parts?

We could argue forever about terminology – about whether or not it is appropriate to use the word “God” to describe either the fundamentally panpsychical reality or the “more than the sum of its parts” emergent holistic and obviously creative nature of the whole universe – but in a universe that has apparently, to take a strictly atheist/materialist viewpoint, randomly given rise to the emergence of life and mind, who could realistically deny the possibility that God may emerge (if s/he hasn't already)?

Excellent post. Siti, My take is that atheism and religious funtementalism are the same thing. It tends believe in its own animating force in opposition to another's. It's like my ego is right your ego is wrong. I grew up secular and my father was a harsh atheist and alcoholic. On night out of the blue he said the ark is x cubits by y cubits by z cubits, since all of life can't possibly fit in boat that size obviously the story is bs and there is no God. At 14 i looked around wondering who the hell is he talking to, i had zero reference. In college i took a biology class and one day a girl asked the professor, "what about god". The professor became all red faced mad and made it clear that that that God had nothing to do with it. I couldn't understand the girls question, I most definitely did not understand the professors anger they were carrying on their own private conversation they both understood which I was not privy to. Atheism requires religion to be atheism, fumdementalist religion can potentially exist without atheism but automatically gives rise to atheism because it's so DAMN silly and stupid. If suddenly religion disappeared atheism would be insanity it would have no reference. This, believe it or not, is impossible to convey to harsh atheists. Like its impossible to convey to harsh religious fundementalists that belief has nothing to do with anything.

In regards to the rest of the post yes!!! With our getting too accedemic about it.

 

[sayak83]

Here's an essay I wrote a few years ago. Sorry its a bit long - but feel free to tear my argument to shreds...

The following partial definitions of atheism and materialism are taken from the American Atheists web pages:

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose…​

I think the partial definition of materialism quoted is a denial of the very means by which the author has constructed the definition. That, I think, is the fundamental problem of atheistic materialism – it fails to account for the inherent purposiveness and creativeness that its proponents quite deliberately employ in order to formulate and express the principles of their own “mental attitude”.

We know, from even casual observation, that, “the whole” is often, if not always, “greater than the sum of its parts” – that is holistic emergence. It happens, so obviously as to be almost unremarkable, at every level of reality we have yet observed. A trio of lonely quarks choreograph their dance to form the original ménage-a-trois, in the process creating a new, emergent level of reality with properties that are unpredictable from the observation of quarks in isolation (if that were even possible). The three become one – a proton, and they are quickly joined by a fourth quark, an electron, who never quite makes it into the inner love triangle but is content to waltz around the periphery giving rise to another novel emergence – a hydrogen atom.

Two of these join together with another more complex atom, oxygen, to form a water molecule and billions of these cooperate to give rise to yet another emergent property not implicit in the underlying level – liquidity. Is the propensity for water (and other molecules) to form liquids under certain conditions an immanent property of the underlying, more fundamental reality, or is it an emergent property that arises from the complexity of the ratios and relationships between the component “particles”?

We could trace the course of emergence onward and upward through the various levels of reality from atoms and molecules, via cells and organs, to organisms, communities and biospheres. At each higher level, higher level functions and properties emerge that correspond approximately to information (data), communication, signal-processing and eventually consciousness and mind. And we must then ask the same question – is the propensity for complex organisms to develop consciousness and mind an inherent, immanent property of the underlying levels of reality, or does it emerge from the complexity of the system?

But at this level, the question takes on a more significant import. If we say consciousness and mind are inherent and implicit in the sub-structure of the universe that gave rise to them, we are subscribing to a kind of panpsychism. If we say it is emergent from the complexity of the system, then why stop there? Why insist that the universe that gave birth to human intelligence is, in its entirety, nothing more than the simple sum of the nuts and bolts it is made of when there is abundant evidence to prove that almost everything that it is made of is so much more than the sum of the component parts?

We could argue forever about terminology – about whether or not it is appropriate to use the word “God” to describe either the fundamentally panpsychical reality or the “more than the sum of its parts” emergent holistic and obviously creative nature of the whole universe – but in a universe that has apparently, to take a strictly atheist/materialist viewpoint, randomly given rise to the emergence of life and mind, who could realistically deny the possibility that God may emerge (if s/he hasn't already)?

I do not understand the point here.
An atheist will simply point out that the possibility of emergence of diamonds exist in the laws of physics governing the universe, but that does not mean that the universe is itself a diamond. In a similar way, the possibility of emergence of conscious life-forms exists in the physics of the universe, but that does not mean the universe itself is a conscious life form.

 

[David T]

As a materialist, I have to admit you've grasped some of the weaknesses of atheistic materialism very well. At this point in time materialism is out of favour amongst scientists particularly due to the revolutionary implications of general relativity and quantum mechanics in changing our understanding of the two extremes of time and space: at the cosmological level and at the sub atomic or quantum level.

The indeterministic behaviour of sub atomic particles constitutes a breakdown in material laws of causality, whereas the ideas such as the big bang suggest non-material phenemeona such as a "begining" of time and space, the existence of unobservable properties such as dark matter, or the existence of multiple dimensions and universes beyond our own, etc represent challanges to the universality of material laws and causality.

Each of these undermines the confidence with which we can attribute cause and effect. When we then come to studying consciousness, these physical observations and theories undermine the credability of materialism in treating consciousness as having a material or physical source in the brain because of the apparent "randomness" of causality.

The materialist objection to this view is that the appearence of randomness is not the same as the reality. It can be argued that the reliance on mathematics as a way to measuring reality and the use of probabilities is a preconception that determines the organisation of theories in an indeterministic way. This is a radical departure from mainstream science and a philosophical challange to theoretical physics. Not being a scientist, I am not able to catagorically refute the possibility so my "materialism" is an inconsistent by very pragmatic one. The essence of atheistic materialism is the belief in the uniformity of nature and that nature obeys material laws of causality. The breakdown of these assumptions in response to scientific discoveries means it is not very hard to hold views that the existence of god is impossible without radical departures from mainstream science and its philosophical implications.

As a materialist, I am comfortable with the belief that an answer to these questions can be found even if we do not know them at present. I give myself that much license in having atheistic-materialism as a belief system but without being informed on the physical science I do not feel able to catagorically refute the authority of science behind such objections.

Is atheism actually valid? It makes wierd assumptions like they actually understand the topic god. That's rather impossible since its understandinding of the topic itself is 100% dependent upon views that are clearly confused. Atheists never seem to think the topic may be valid it's the understanding that's confused. All emperical evidence points to confusion yet atheism treats this topic like it's clear!! It most certainly is not. If religion is infact profoundly confused in context to a book they created how is science, clear about a that which it did not create but created them which we call nature? I loosely very very loosely use the term created here not literally. Everyone seems to have their own private understanding of nature, is That understanding or is that not just confusion, dressed up in collective agreements in flavor of the day philosophies arguing with collective agreements arguing with flavor of the day philosophies? On and on and on.

 

[McBell]

How many theists merely go on what they think/assume/imagine/etc. what atheism is instead of finding out from atheists?
And how many who do ask atheists ask one and then try to base all of atheism on their one or two examples?

I do not believe that god exists.
I ALSO do not believe that god does not exist.
I am ok with saying "I Do Not Know'.
Why?
Because I do not know.
Is it possible that god exists?
Sure.
Have I seen or heard or read anything that convinces me god exists?
No.
Are there atheists who proclaim from the roof tops that god does not exist?
Yes.
Do they speak for all of atheism?
No.

Seems to me that one of the biggest problems with theists understanding atheism is that far to many theists think they understand atheism when they actually don't know squat.

 

[Laika]

Is atheism actually valid? It makes wierd assumptions like they actually understand the topic god. That's rather impossible since its understandinding of the topic itself is 100% dependent upon views that are clearly confused. Atheists never seem to think the topic may be valid it's the understanding that's confused. All emperical evidence points to confusion yet atheism treats this topic like it's clear!! It most certainly is not. If religion is infact profoundly confused in context to a book they created how is science, clear about a that which it did not create but created them which we call nature? I loosely very very loosely use the term created here not literally. Everyone seems to have their own private understanding of nature, is That understanding or is that not just confusion, dressed up in collective agreements in flavor of the day philosophies arguing with collective agreements arguing with flavor of the day philosophies? On and on and on.

Atheism is not a single idea but a group of philosophies so it can vary greatly. Because I'm a materialist it's very simple- as long as consciousness cannot exist independent of matter organised into the physical processes of a brain, the existence of God is impossible. However a majority of atheists on RF won't share that view as they are sceptics and so are much more agnostic in their atheism.

 

[Skwim]

That's got to be the most complex and involved definition of atheism I've ever seen -- and it doesn't seem to define atheism at all.

Certainly not as I've always understood it. To me atheism has always meant the negation of theism: "a-theism," the denial of the existence of god(s). (Theism being the belief that god(s) exists ). Anything more is irrelevant filler.


.

 

[McBell]

Certainly not as I've always understood it. To me atheism has always meant the negation of theism---"a-theism" (theism being the belief that god(s) exists---the denial of the existence of god(s). Anything more is irrelevant filler.


.

Cannot deny the existence of something that has not been shown to exist.

 

[Skwim]

Cannot deny the existence of something that has not been shown to exist.

Sure I can. If someone contends that Superman truly exists, I can certainly deny that he does. Can't you? And if something has been shown to exist, to my satisfaction of course, why should I deny it?


.

 

[McBell]

Sure I can. If someone contends that Superman truly exists, I can certainly deny that he does. Can't you? And if something has been shown to exist, to my satisfaction of course, why should I deny it?


.

my apologies.
I misread you initial post.

 

[Valjean]

Is atheism actually valid? It makes wierd assumptions like they actually understand the topic god.

Atheism doesn't make any assumptions, it has no beliefs, philosophy or creed. It's simply a lack of belief. Do you make any assumptions about pink lunar unicorns? Do you understand the topic?
Yes, some atheists do wax philosophical and have particular theological -- or anti-theological -- beliefs, but these are extraneous to the basic essence of atheism.
Atheism's simply a lack of belief.

Atheism is not a single idea but a group of philosophies so it can vary greatly.

It's not an idea, it's a lack of an idea, and it's certainly not a philosophy. How could there be a philosophy with no beliefs, principles or tenets?
You're reading too much into atheism. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in God. Ergo, lack of belief is the only essential feature of atheism. It's definitive.

 

[Skwim]

my apologies.
I misread you initial post.

No apologies necessary. My post was poorly formatted. I changed it.


.

 

[YmirGF]

Here's an essay I wrote a few years ago. Sorry its a bit long - but feel free to tear my argument to shreds...

The following partial definitions of atheism and materialism are taken from the American Atheists web pages:

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose…​

I think the partial definition of materialism quoted is a denial of the very means by which the author has constructed the definition. That, I think, is the fundamental problem of atheistic materialism – it fails to account for the inherent purposiveness and creativeness that its proponents quite deliberately employ in order to formulate and express the principles of their own “mental attitude”.

We know, from even casual observation, that, “the whole” is often, if not always, “greater than the sum of its parts” – that is holistic emergence. It happens, so obviously as to be almost unremarkable, at every level of reality we have yet observed. A trio of lonely quarks choreograph their dance to form the original ménage-a-trois, in the process creating a new, emergent level of reality with properties that are unpredictable from the observation of quarks in isolation (if that were even possible). The three become one – a proton, and they are quickly joined by a fourth quark, an electron, who never quite makes it into the inner love triangle but is content to waltz around the periphery giving rise to another novel emergence – a hydrogen atom.

Two of these join together with another more complex atom, oxygen, to form a water molecule and billions of these cooperate to give rise to yet another emergent property not implicit in the underlying level – liquidity. Is the propensity for water (and other molecules) to form liquids under certain conditions an immanent property of the underlying, more fundamental reality, or is it an emergent property that arises from the complexity of the ratios and relationships between the component “particles”?

We could trace the course of emergence onward and upward through the various levels of reality from atoms and molecules, via cells and organs, to organisms, communities and biospheres. At each higher level, higher level functions and properties emerge that correspond approximately to information (data), communication, signal-processing and eventually consciousness and mind. And we must then ask the same question – is the propensity for complex organisms to develop consciousness and mind an inherent, immanent property of the underlying levels of reality, or does it emerge from the complexity of the system?

But at this level, the question takes on a more significant import. If we say consciousness and mind are inherent and implicit in the sub-structure of the universe that gave rise to them, we are subscribing to a kind of panpsychism. If we say it is emergent from the complexity of the system, then why stop there? Why insist that the universe that gave birth to human intelligence is, in its entirety, nothing more than the simple sum of the nuts and bolts it is made of when there is abundant evidence to prove that almost everything that it is made of is so much more than the sum of the component parts?

We could argue forever about terminology – about whether or not it is appropriate to use the word “God” to describe either the fundamentally panpsychical reality or the “more than the sum of its parts” emergent holistic and obviously creative nature of the whole universe – but in a universe that has apparently, to take a strictly atheist/materialist viewpoint, randomly given rise to the emergence of life and mind, who could realistically deny the possibility that God may emerge (if s/he hasn't already)?

All in all, not a bad response to American Atheists, Inc but not particularly meaningful to non-aligned atheists.

 

[Nous]

I grew up secular and my father was a harsh atheist and alcoholic. On night out of the blue he said the ark is x cubits by y cubits by z cubits, since all of life can't possibly fit in boat that size obviously the story is bs and there is no God.

Ha! I'm often embarrassed to say this, but I've known other people who have reasoned similarly. I have a friend who has (often) said something to effect: "I'm an atheist because I know the earth was not created 6,000 years ago." And she will say such even after we've had in-depth discussions of Advaita and various forms of Buddhism and philosophy, etc.

 

[ArtieE]

Certainly not as I've always understood it. To me atheism has always meant the negation of theism: "a-theism," the denial of the existence of god(s). (Theism being the belief that god(s) exists ). Anything more is irrelevant filler.

The prefix a- means "not, without". A theist is a person who believes in the existence of at least one god, an atheist is a person who is not a theist. A person who is without belief in the existence of any gods.