Atheism as a philosophy, is beneficial to the theist!

[Epic Beard Man]

It's spontanous for those raised in an atheist environment, as theism is spontanous for those raised in a theist one.

But I see where you're coming from in regards to linking it with those philosophies - if theism is wide-spread in a culture, one needs to first develop some critical thinking skills to come to an atheistic position.
And considering how much part of Christian morality goes against humanist values, it's no wonder that those who become humanists may also leave Christianity simoultaneously - but that doesn't mean that they therefore would arrive at an atheist position. Many of the early humanists instead became pantheists, deists, etc.

right this right here but I have to further think about your post...I'm so sleepy from a 12 hour shift but thanks for understanding what I'm trying to convey. I promise to be more thorough and clear.

 

[Quiddity]

I find it interesting that when it comes to categorizing atheism, it's met with as much vagueness and resistance to any form of boxing them into any form, that it's usually is left with one-liners at best. But when it comes to positive characteristics, it's an atheistic trait. No more one-liners or vagueness. All that suddenly goes away.....Just saying.....

 

[Willamena]

But atheism is not spontaneous it derives from something

Don't sweat that some people don't see it. Some do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This strong atheist is certainly not a nihilist.

Anything wrong with being a nihilist? One can still live his/her life happily (in dharma - it is not necessary for a nihilist to abandon social responsibilities). We may be living in zero-energy universe. I too am a strong atheist.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Because?

It seems to be merely 'lack of god beliefs'. Anything else is what personal atheists choose to accept or reject. Is that not so?

Nah. That is giving atheism a lot more significance than it can sustain.

Nonetheless, in philosophical terms what the poster I responded to said is called that.

That would only be true if, well, if it were true. Which it isn't.

How is 'lack of belief in god(s)' not by itself nihilistic? That is atheism at it's bare minimum, which says nothing to morals.

It is actually you who are attempting to add a moral consequence to atheism, though.

No, I am attempting to refute that it inherently has one, which the OP seemed to suggest.

I don't think many say such a thing.

The OP I was responding to said that.

Eh. As if.

I direct you to the thread Origin of Gods for a fantastic example. One of many I've observed.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think you have to go back to what the definition of atheism is, as has already been said, it is a rejection of/lack of belief in all gods. Nothing else, in particular it says nothing about the person's moral compass.

I agree.

I'm an atheist but I'm not a nihilist because I have morals.

That is a good thing.

It’s no more inherently nihilistic than not liking bananas or being able to play the bagpipes. That singular label alone tells you nothing about whether an individual has morals or not

I find this a rather arbitrary rejection of what I said. How would that be different than inherent nihilism as concerns basic atheism?

(and neither does the label “theist” by the way)

That is very debatable, given what the label of theist might imply. It also isn't going into kinds of theism.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's possible for an atheist to be a nihilist, but majority of atheists are not.

Meaning the majority of atheists do not find pure atheism (only lack of belief in god) to be satisfactory. They formulate something beyond it (moral standards), or go running to philosophical systems like humanism for it, which Christians first developed by the by.

I was making an attempt to state what I have encountered.

That's understandable and it's all good!

 

[Father Heathen]

How is 'lack of belief in god(s)' not by itself nihilistic? That is atheism at it's bare minimum, which says nothing to morals.

Collecting stamps says nothing of morals, either, but it would be silly to call it "inherently nihilistic".

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Collecting stamps says nothing of morals, either, but it would be silly to call it "inherently nihilistic".

Well I guess that's your understanding. I am not so certain we aren't arguing about semantics here.

By the way, I am not trying to imply atheists must necessarily not have morals. I also don't think that a lot of atheists are willing to admit their essential worldview is as absolutely minimalist as it is. I only hope to get some people to think here- not attack them.

 

[HonestJoe]

I find this a rather arbitrary rejection of what I said. How would that be different than inherent nihilism as concerns basic atheism?

I think you’re making an all too common error regarding the terms atheism and theism. Neither word defines a type of person or a general philosophy, they’re both simple, singular characteristics. The philosophy or worldview of an individual will be made up of countless different elements, and whether they believe in and gods or not is just one. By claiming that atheism in inherently nihilist is to say that everyone the label atheist applies to is nihilist by definition. That’s clearly and demonstrably untrue.

That is very debatable, given what the label of theist might imply. It also isn't going into kinds of theism.

The keyword there being might. I also think talking about “kinds of theism” is part of the same error. There is only one type of theism; believing in the existence or a god or gods. There will then be a whole load of additional ideas built around it, related but separate. If all you know about an individual is that they’re theist, you can’t presume anything else about their beliefs or worldview. Exactly the same is true of atheism (because they’re essentially opposites).

If all you know about an individual is that they’re blond, you can’t presume anything else about them. You might because of social stereotypes or personal bais but that wouldn’t make you correct in your assumptions or justify them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Meaning the majority of atheists do not find pure atheism (only lack of belief in god) to be satisfactory. They formulate something beyond it (moral standards), or go running to philosophical systems like humanism for it, which Christians first developed by the by.

Bahahahahaha!!!!
Oh wait...are you serious here?

 

[LuisDantas]

@Epic Beard Man , I fear I can't make heads or tails of what you said, except this:

Nobody wakes up and says atheism is simply a belief in no deity without a process of thought to come to a conclusion and the same can be said about theists.

Atheism "exists" by itself. Naming it requires the creation or discovery of theism, of course.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is 'lack of belief in god(s)' not by itself nihilistic? That is atheism at it's bare minimum, which says nothing to morals.

Nihilism is not at all the same as amorality. And you are committing a serious mistake in presuming that atheism does not lead to morality - which, as a matter of fact, it often does.

No, I am attempting to refute that it inherently has one, which the OP seemed to suggest.

The OP I was responding to said that.

The OP neither is an atheist nor commands a good working understanding of atheism.

I direct you to the thread Origin of Gods for a fantastic example. One of many I've observed.

May you provide a link?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

@Epic Beard Man , I fear I can't make heads or tails of what you said, except this:



Atheism "exists" by itself. Naming it requires the creation or discovery of theism, of course.

Which of course derives from a set of philosophical pinciples to come to the conclusion that something incorporeal and autonomous is not empirically valid.

 

[Willamena]

Philosophical nihilism (the idea that things have no real existence) regards existence as a predicate and either applies it or denies it to particular things. Atheism, as a nihilism, denies the predicate to god.

 

[Liu]

Is that so? Personally, I don't think that is very accurate.

Theism seems to develop spontaneously, but only rarely and in an unfocused way. Even in societies that refuse to even acknowledge divergence of belief it takes considerable effort to keep people conforming to the majority's established line of thought.

By contrast, skepticism develops a lot more spontaneously and often leads naturally to atheism in people so inclined.

Thinking about your reply, I came to the conclusion that it depends on what we mean by "spontaneously".
I was mainly thinking of, if a person doesn't personally engage in thinking about theology, metaphysics etc. but just takes in from their cultural surroundings, then those will naturally shape their beliefs.
Of course, many people do have critical thinking skills and might apply them also onto religion.
That's why I wrote "one needs to first develop some critical thinking skills to come to an atheistic position" if one was raised as a theist (and possibly also the other way round, although there are other factors besides critical thinking that may make one a theist).

In my own case, my upbringing included both theistic and atheistic influences, and both these clearly shaped how I was thinking about religion.
I didn't really become religious, though, before emerging myself in literature of theistic Satanism and other religions, and I'm still an agnostic at heart.
The fact that I chose to become a theist of course is also due to my personal inclinations, and so I understand your point if you mean this by spontaneous.

Not really. Some people are simply not a good fit for theism. I may be one of those, if my memories of understanding Christianity as a form of fable-worship that was never meant to involve actual god-belief are at all accurate.

Then that is either what your culture influenced you to think about religion (which wouldn't really surprise me), or you early on developed critical thinking skills

Nobody wakes up and says atheism is simply a belief in no deity without a process of thought to come to a conclusion and the same can be said about theists.

That doesn't however mean that lacking belief in a deity couldn't arise spontaneously - only the self-identification as an atheist is what requires a process of thought, a concept of what is even meant by deity.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which of course derives from a set of philosophical pinciples to come to the conclusion that something incorporeal and autonomous is not empirically valid.

Uh, no. That is entirely optional.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Uh, no. That is entirely optional.

Again the disbelief in a God or gods is not spontaneous nor does it exist by itself. No idea does...

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Thinking about your reply, I came to the conclusion that it depends on what we mean by "spontaneously".
I was mainly thinking of, if a person doesn't personally engage in thinking about theology, metaphysics etc. but just takes in from their cultural surroundings, then those will naturally shape their beliefs.
Of course, many people do have critical thinking skills and might apply them also onto religion.
That's why I wrote "one needs to first develop some critical thinking skills to come to an atheistic position" if one was raised as a theist (and possibly also the other way round, although there are other factors besides critical thinking that may make one a theist).

In my own case, my upbringing included both theistic and atheistic influences, and both these clearly shaped how I was thinking about religion.
I didn't really become religious, though, before emerging myself in literature of theistic Satanism and other religions, and I'm still an agnostic at heart.
The fact that I chose to become a theist of course is also due to my personal inclinations, and so I understand your point if you mean this by spontaneous.


Then that is either what your culture influenced you to think about religion (which wouldn't really surprise me), or you early on developed critical thinking skills


That doesn't however mean that lacking belief in a deity couldn't arise spontaneously - only the self-identification as an atheist is what requires a process of thought, a concept of what is even meant by deity.

Yes but to self-identify requires a process. I think in this threa one person gets what I'm saying...Some people are disagreeing just to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Typically atheism (the weak flavor) isn't a philosophy, a belief, or anything
other than a perspective. But this perspective can be useful to anyone.
Try it on for size, & see how your own beliefs & other beliefs then look.
If one sees them all as not absolutely true, then perhaps rancorous
differences could vanish.