Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

[Curious George]

That is not a belief George, it is just what the label means.

Of course it is a belief. In fact, saying that it is not a belief is another belief. And saying that "it is what the label means" is yet another.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course it is a belief. In fact, saying that it is not a belief is another belief. And saying that "it is what the label means" is yet another.

Are you ok George?

 

[Curious George]

Are you ok George?

Hmm, I think so. What seems to be the problem?

 

[Bunyip]

Hmm, I think so. What seems to be the problem?

We appear to be speaking different languages, lets just leave it there.

 

[Augustus]

I see very few people making arguments regarding atheism. I never do.

In a post where you are making multiple arguments regarding atheism, you deny that you ever make arguments about atheism? hmmm...

Nope, it is exactly how language is used. The prefix "a" means "without". Atheists are without religion. That's what the word means.

Are you arguing that the meaning of a word comes from the letters that make it up? That's really not how language works in the slightest.

But atheism is no more an ideology than not believing in Bigfoot

Atheism may or may not be part of somebodies ideology. Atheism is not per se an ideology, but it may well be a significant part of somebody's worldview.

There is no atheistic worldview, period.

Correct, there is no singular atheistic worldview, there are many.

Atheism is the default position. Nobody is born with religious beliefs.

Can you explain why birth = default = natural = standard? Why must the default be defined at birth, that's a highly arbitrary value judgement, not 'objective' reason. As is making assumption about babies minds, when there is scientific debate about whether or not we a predisposed towards religious beliefs.

To say babies = atheist so atheist = natural is not rational, it is an ideological assumption that you want to be true for rhetorical purposes.

For arguments sake, even if a baby was objectively atheist but a 3 year old was predisposed towards 'religious' beliefs, why should atheism be considered the default for anyone aged 3 and above?

We just point out that Stalin's atheism has no direct and demonstrable causal link to what he did under communism. Nobody denies that he was an atheist, nobody has the slightest problem with it. It just didn't cause his actions.

So the attempts to de-Christianise the USSR and France had nothing to do with atheism? An individual's atheistic worldview can never be connected to any further decisions or behaviours?

That people publicly professing the importance of atheism as opposed to religiosity, can't be said to be influenced by their atheism?

Most things have many partial causes, are you denying that atheism is ever one of them?

Islamic terrorism is Islam + politics + additional ideology + history etc.

Why can't atheism ever be considered to be part of such a chain of causes?

 

[Cephus]

In a post where you are making multiple arguments regarding atheism, you deny that you ever make arguments about atheism? hmmm...

You're welcome to find a quote where I make any arguments about atheism. Go ahead. Atheism is a non-argument, it makes no claims, has no doctrines, has no goals, it is simply the rejection of irrational claims made by theists. If you can find anywhere that I've ever said otherwise, go ahead and post it.

Are you arguing that the meaning of a word comes from the letters that make it up? That's really not how language works in the slightest.

Um... yes? Maybe you're just really young or uneducated, but classical English at least, actually follows rules.

Atheism may or may not be part of somebodies ideology. Atheism is not per se an ideology, but it may well be a significant part of somebody's worldview.

"Worldview" has become seriously misused, a way to promote unjustified and unjustifiable beliefs and grant them some legitimacy. There are no worldviews. There is a correct, rational and credible way of looking at the world and there are a lot of wrong ways.

Correct, there is no singular atheistic worldview, there are many.

Dealing with reality as it actually is, not as you wish it was, is not a worldview.

Can you explain why birth = default = natural = standard? Why must the default be defined at birth, that's a highly arbitrary value judgement, not 'objective' reason. As is making assumption about babies minds, when there is scientific debate about whether or not we a predisposed towards religious beliefs.

Because those are the things for which we have any actual, objective evidence. And yes, atheism is the default position because, unless someone changes their minds somewhere down the road, that is what everyone will remain from birth. That's the definition of the word. If a baby is never introduced to a belief in gods, they will never have a belief in gods. The same goes for unicorns, leprechauns and honest politicians. They never encounter any of these things in real life. If they are not told a bout them, they will never form an attachment to the concept.

To say babies = atheist so atheist = natural is not rational, it is an ideological assumption that you want to be true for rhetorical purposes.

Natural is something that comes from nature. Find me a god in nature and you can have belief in it be natural. Logic. Try it.

For arguments sake, even if a baby was objectively atheist but a 3 year old was predisposed towards 'religious' beliefs, why should atheism be considered the default for anyone aged 3 and above?

There's a lot of theists who make a big deal out of such a claimed predisposition, but there really isn't one. We've been equipped by evolution with the desire to seek the answer to questions, even if we have no actual answers, it is a survival trait that was useful at one time but probably isn't as important today. It's part of the pattern recognition system that results in pareidolia, that thing that causes us to see figures in clouds and Jesus on toast, things that aren't really there but we inherently look for patterns where there may actually be none. Primitive people didn't understand the world around them, but their brains made them look for solutions and as such, they invented gods and monsters to explain the things they couldn't understand. Today, we no longer really need that, science has explained, at least in the broad strokes, much of the natural world and we have no evidence whatsoever to think there is anything beyond it. However, emotional comfort often overrides common sense and that's the only reason that religion still exists today. Luckily, at least in the western world, religion is quickly going the way of the dodo.

So the attempts to de-Christianise the USSR and France had nothing to do with atheism? An individual's atheistic worldview can never be connected to any further decisions or behaviours?

Nope. Assuming that you're still talking about communism, it had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with strengthening communism. A central tenet of communism is strict adherence to the state, anything that gets in the way of that, anything that can split the loyalty of the people, is banned. That wasn't just religion though, although that's all that most religious people remember.

That people publicly professing the importance of atheism as opposed to religiosity, can't be said to be influenced by their atheism?

Nobody was publically professing the importance of atheism. Nobody was being forced to go to atheist meetings and being forced to read atheist books (no, few existed at the time, but you know what I mean). Atheism is the default position. When you remove religion, everyone is an atheist by default. It's like removing stamp collecting, everyone becomes a non-stamp collector. That doesn't mean you suddenly start advocating non-stamp collecting, it means you just don't do it. The absence of religion is atheism by default. It is not an attack on religion, any more than a-leprechaunism, the lack of belief in leprechauns, is an attack on the belief in leprechauns.

Most things have many partial causes, are you denying that atheism is ever one of them?

No, but you're the one claiming it is so, it rests solely on your shoulders to prove your case.

Islamic terrorism is Islam + politics + additional ideology + history etc.

Actually, it's mostly religion in that case because there is no part of radical Muslim life that isn't dictated by their religion. The same was true of some factions of Christianity in the past, where everything revolved around their religious beliefs. They had no secular laws. They had no secular society. In the west, we have that today and most Christians keep their Christianity compartmentalized, they follow the secular laws, they take part in secular society and they really only exercise their religious beliefs on Sunday morning. In fact, I'd wager most modern American Christians don't really believe the things they profess, they only engage in Christianity as a social exercise. They pretend to believe things because that's what's expected to be part of their social club on Sunday morning. That's one reason why religion is failing so badly and so quickly, because most religious people are not deeply invested in their beliefs.

Why can't atheism ever be considered to be part of such a chain of causes?

I'm not saying it can't. You're saying it is. It's up to you to prove it. Get to work.

 

[Kirran]

It produces correct predictions. If it were bogus, the spacecraft would miss their destinations, for example. It makes sense to expect it to continue to work.

Sorry, I have probably been unclear. Science certainly is able to make valid predictions as regards that kind of thing. All I am saying is that science cannot be proved to be a valid means for ascertaining the actual nature of reality, for ascertaining what is absolutely true, as opposed to experientially or apparently true. It is very good at the latter. I will again stress that I am a scientist myself, and am in no way anti-science.

 

[Looncall]

Sorry, I have probably been unclear. Science certainly is able to make valid predictions as regards that kind of thing. All I am saying is that science cannot be proved to be a valid means for ascertaining the actual nature of reality, for ascertaining what is absolutely true, as opposed to experientially or apparently true. It is very good at the latter. I will again stress that I am a scientist myself, and am in no way anti-science.

So what other method has a good track record for ascertaining matters of fact?

 

[Kirran]

So what other method has a good track record for ascertaining matters of fact?

None, really.

 

[outhouse]

All I am saying is that science cannot be proved to be a valid means for ascertaining the actual nature of reality,

I find this ridiculous at best bud. Science is factually the only credible method to study nature



Science is the study of nature.

Do you think mythology explains nature?

Do you think guessing explains nature?

Should the ignorant explain nature using bias?

Should we have a lottery and draw numbers to explaining nature?

 

[Kirran]

I find this ridiculous at best bud. Science is factually the only credible method to study nature



Science is the study of nature.

Do you think mythology explains nature?

Do you think guessing explains nature?

Should the ignorant explain nature using bias?

Should we have a lottery and draw numbers to explaining nature?

I didn't say we had a better method. But seeing as all science essentially occurs via the medium of our own perceptions (all we experience is our own nervous system, as some individual said) we have no way of externally verifying the absolute truth or not of its discoveries.

 

[jojom]

I didn't say we had a better method. But seeing as all science essentially occurs via the medium of our own perceptions (all we experience is our own nervous system, as some individual said) we have no way of externally verifying the absolute truth or not of its discoveries.

So now you want to play around with epistemology, or more specifically, alethiology. Good luck.


.

 

[Augustus]

Um... yes? Maybe you're just really young or uneducated, but classical English at least, actually follows rules.

Meaning of language can be accurately discerned simply from the letters used in the word? By knowing letters you know meaning? And you consider yourself both rational and scientific?

If a baby is never introduced to a belief in gods, they will never have a belief in gods. The same goes for unicorns, leprechauns and honest politicians. They never encounter any of these things in real life. If they are not told a bout them, they will never form an attachment to the concept.

So why are there religions and gods in most societies?

The 'religion as virus' hypothesis is not a fact, and there is plenty of peer reviewed scientific literature that would disagree with what you are saying. I'm unaware of any peer reviewed scientific literature regarding belief in unicorns though.

Why should I accept that a baby that is never introduced to the concept of god would never have a belief in god though? Just because you say it is so? As someone who values the sciences, you surely don't advocate personal bluster over reasoned enquiry. Do you have actual, objective evidence, to support your baseless claim? Can I expect a thorough refutation of the body of peer reviewed research that disagrees with you?

Nobody was publically professing the importance of atheism.

The point is, therefore, to be more radical than everybody else as far as atheism is concerned. Fortunately it is easy enough to be an atheist today. Atheism is so near to being self-obvious with European working-class parties nowadays — although in certain countries it is often enough like that of the Spanish Bakuninist who maintained that it was against all socialism to believe in God but that the Virgin Mary was a different matter, every decent socialist ought naturally to believe in her. It can even be said of the German Social-Democratic workers that atheism has already outlived itself with them: this purely negative word no longer has any application as far as they are concerned inasmuch as their opposition to faith in God is no longer one of theory but one of practice; they have purely and simply finished with God, they live and think in the world of reality and are therefore materialists. Marx and Engels On Religion,

It is furthermore imperative to put the propaganda of atheism on solid ground. You won't achieve much with the weapons of Marx and materialism, as we have seen. Materialism and religion are two different planes and they don't coincide. If a fool speaks from the heavens and the sage from a factory--they won't understand one another. The sage needs to hit the fool with his stick, with his weapon. Gorky, Letter to Stalin

So at least 'somebody' was professing the importance of atheism. 1 will do.

Actually, it's mostly religion in that case because there is no part of radical Muslim life that isn't dictated by their religion.

Even if it is, (which is debatable) it is not really important what it 'mostly' is, that it is a combination of things is enough to support the point I was making. Various things combine to make the totality of the ideology.

I'm not saying it can't. You're saying it is. It's up to you to prove it. Get to work.

See for example, Gorky.

When atheism is mentioned repeatedly in communist ideological texts why should I think it was completely irrelevant?

In a previous post, you said that Hitler using Christian language in his propaganda, meant we should assume he was a Christian and that his Christianity 'caused his actions', despite the fact that his propaganda was clearly contradicted by his actions, and that his professions of Christianity were most likely strategic rather than actually reflecting his beliefs (based on evidence). [To clarify: I think that the anti-Semitism in Germany was, in part, due to the anti-Semitism prevalent in Christian traditions, and that the views of Hitler can't be separated from this. I don't think he was a Christian though. ]

So why then, when Communists professed atheism in non-propaganda documents and acted in a way completely consistent with this, should we completely ignore atheism in the overall ideology? Marx undoubtedly understood the power of religion, and the communist hostility to religion was certainly about removing rival power structures, I don't think that this can be separated from his atheism though. Hostility to the church was, at least in part, due to the belief that there was no god and thus the teachings of religion were false.

 

[Cephus]

So why are there religions and gods in most societies?

Because there are people who teach their children about religions and gods? But if you look at the western world, in most countries, religiosity is falling dramatically. At current rates, people who are openly religions will fall under the 50% mark in just a few short decades. That's a good thing.

The 'religion as virus' hypothesis is not a fact, and there is plenty of peer reviewed scientific literature that would disagree with what you are saying. I'm unaware of any peer reviewed scientific literature regarding belief in unicorns though.

Religion isn't a virus because a virus is a biological entity and religion is not, but religion certainly is a meme, which was a term coined by Richard Dawkins that means "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". Religion is not natural. If nobody talked about Christianity, if there were no Bibles or other books, if nobody ever mentioned God or Jesus at all, to anyone, ever, Christianity would be entirely extinct within a generation or two because nobody just knows this stuff, it's all an informational virus, passed from one gullible person to another.

Why should I accept that a baby that is never introduced to the concept of god would never have a belief in god though? Just because you say it is so? As someone who values the sciences, you surely don't advocate personal bluster over reasoned enquiry. Do you have actual, objective evidence, to support your baseless claim? Can I expect a thorough refutation of the body of peer reviewed research that disagrees with you?

Where would they get that belief in a god? Go ahead, explain it to us. That's like saying that a child who never had any exposure to language would just magically start speaking English one day. Are you nuts?

This just gets tiring.

 

[Augustus]

Where would they get that belief in a god? Go ahead, explain it to us. That's like saying that a child who never had any exposure to language would just magically start speaking English one day.

I wouldn't expect him to speak English, but I would expect him to develop a basic language (assuming he's not isolated)

I agree that they would not come up with any specific god that we currently have, but that is not the point. I don't for 1 second think any specific religion is natural.

They have at least a reasonable probability of creating some form of God though, at least this is what a lot of evidence seems to suggest. Is it rational to dismiss this out of hand?

You understand the massive difference between the 2 points?

 

[outhouse]

But seeing as all science essentially occurs via the medium of our own perceptions (all we experience is our own nervous system, as some individual said) we have no way of externally verifying the absolute truth or not of its discoveries.

But your wrong. It is not via medium of perception. IT IS the observation of facts, to the point it cannot be refuted.

In other words, just perception is not a fact.


Yes we can verify truth.


Anything else is a cop out for some personal reason, and I hope its not willful ignorance.

 

[Cephus]

They have at least a reasonable probability of creating some form of God though, at least this is what a lot of evidence seems to suggest. Is it rational to dismiss this out of hand?

Nobody is dismissing anything out of hand, I'm asking for evidence. Show me where this has actually happened in, say, the past decade, where someone who has never been exposed to any religion makes up their own, entirely original one.

 

[Curious George]

You're welcome to find a quote where I make any arguments about atheism. Go ahead. Atheism is a non-argument, it makes no claims, has no doctrines, has no goals, it is simply the rejection of irrational claims made by theists. If you can find anywhere that I've ever said otherwise, go ahead and post it.



Um... yes? Maybe you're just really young or uneducated, but classical English at least, actually follows rules.



"Worldview" has become seriously misused, a way to promote unjustified and unjustifiable beliefs and grant them some legitimacy. There are no worldviews. There is a correct, rational and credible way of looking at the world and there are a lot of wrong ways.



Dealing with reality as it actually is, not as you wish it was, is not a worldview.



Because those are the things for which we have any actual, objective evidence. And yes, atheism is the default position because, unless someone changes their minds somewhere down the road, that is what everyone will remain from birth. That's the definition of the word. If a baby is never introduced to a belief in gods, they will never have a belief in gods. The same goes for unicorns, leprechauns and honest politicians. They never encounter any of these things in real life. If they are not told a bout them, they will never form an attachment to the concept.



Natural is something that comes from nature. Find me a god in nature and you can have belief in it be natural. Logic. Try it.



There's a lot of theists who make a big deal out of such a claimed predisposition, but there really isn't one. We've been equipped by evolution with the desire to seek the answer to questions, even if we have no actual answers, it is a survival trait that was useful at one time but probably isn't as important today. It's part of the pattern recognition system that results in pareidolia, that thing that causes us to see figures in clouds and Jesus on toast, things that aren't really there but we inherently look for patterns where there may actually be none. Primitive people didn't understand the world around them, but their brains made them look for solutions and as such, they invented gods and monsters to explain the things they couldn't understand. Today, we no longer really need that, science has explained, at least in the broad strokes, much of the natural world and we have no evidence whatsoever to think there is anything beyond it. However, emotional comfort often overrides common sense and that's the only reason that religion still exists today. Luckily, at least in the western world, religion is quickly going the way of the dodo.



Nope. Assuming that you're still talking about communism, it had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with strengthening communism. A central tenet of communism is strict adherence to the state, anything that gets in the way of that, anything that can split the loyalty of the people, is banned. That wasn't just religion though, although that's all that most religious people remember.



Nobody was publically professing the importance of atheism. Nobody was being forced to go to atheist meetings and being forced to read atheist books (no, few existed at the time, but you know what I mean). Atheism is the default position. When you remove religion, everyone is an atheist by default. It's like removing stamp collecting, everyone becomes a non-stamp collector. That doesn't mean you suddenly start advocating non-stamp collecting, it means you just don't do it. The absence of religion is atheism by default. It is not an attack on religion, any more than a-leprechaunism, the lack of belief in leprechauns, is an attack on the belief in leprechauns.



No, but you're the one claiming it is so, it rests solely on your shoulders to prove your case.



Actually, it's mostly religion in that case because there is no part of radical Muslim life that isn't dictated by their religion. The same was true of some factions of Christianity in the past, where everything revolved around their religious beliefs. They had no secular laws. They had no secular society. In the west, we have that today and most Christians keep their Christianity compartmentalized, they follow the secular laws, they take part in secular society and they really only exercise their religious beliefs on Sunday morning. In fact, I'd wager most modern American Christians don't really believe the things they profess, they only engage in Christianity as a social exercise. They pretend to believe things because that's what's expected to be part of their social club on Sunday morning. That's one reason why religion is failing so badly and so quickly, because most religious people are not deeply invested in their beliefs.



I'm not saying it can't. You're saying it is. It's up to you to prove it. Get to work.

Ooh, ooh. I found one. A little easy to be honest. (Sort of like finding waldo on the cover).

 

[Augustus]

Nobody is dismissing anything out of hand, I'm asking for evidence. Show me where this has actually happened in, say, the past decade, where someone who has never been exposed to any religion makes up their own, entirely original one.

Look at the research in the field of the cognitive science of religion.

Regarding this question, someone could look at the peer-reviewed research that is currently being done into questions such as 'Is belief in god natural?' or 'Are humans predisposed to believing in god?', which often reaches a different, although certainly not uniformly agreed on, conclusion to you.

From history we know that humans have created many religions and gods independently of each other, we know that belief in god is enduring and resistant to change, we have modern research looking at how the functioning of the mind can lead to religious belief.

From this I might conclude that beliefs about god could possibly form organically in the mind, rather than only ever being an unnatural 'virus', introduced by a malicious agent.

Or, alternatively, I could take the word of the internet's Cephus, who asserts that people only believe in gods due to indoctrination, despite presenting zero evidence in support of this claim (while demanding evidence from others).

If one was being rational, even relentlessly so, would it not be more reasonable to agree with the statement 'Given history and current scientific understanding, there is a reasonable possibility that belief in god forms from the normal cognitive functioning or the human brain' rather than simply assert that 'If a baby is never introduced to a belief in gods, they will never have a belief in gods.'

I know your ideological perspective makes you want to believe the latter is true, but is it really so self-evident?

 

[Augustus]

Ooh, ooh. I found one. A little easy to be honest. (Sort of like finding waldo on the cover).

Is it unique to (certain) atheists on RF that they make claims whilst denying that they are actually making a claim?

I can't think of any other group who specifically and consistently denies that what they said actually constitutes a claim rather than simply being the denotation of objective fact.