Thoughts on Atheism

[corynski]

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?

Better off? Curious thought. Not to any believer I'm sure, but I'm sure atheists feel they have a better grasp on 'reality' by not believing in trolls and tooth fairies. Is that of any value in the world? Maybe so, maybe not. Yes, not having religion to comfort me is perceivable, but this is countered by 'but I'm closer to reality', whether this is true or not. It is troubling to atheists that believers are so smug and secure in their religious beliefs, with little desire to question the brainwashing they receive from birth onwards, by parents, clergy, friends...... There is a reason anthropology isn't taught to children. And as what's his name said: "There is no antidote for religion mixed with mother's milk."

 

[Quintessence]

Something that needs added to the opening post:

How do you define "god?"

Both the terms "atheist" and "theist" are meaningless without defining that word.

 

[suncowiam]

Something that needs added to the opening post:

How do you define "god?"

Both the terms "atheist" and "theist" are meaningless without defining that word.

Do you expect every discussion on a religious forum to define god first?

 

[blü 2]

Firstly, Atheism is (for me) the explicit rejection of the existence of god. the reason for this is that god is something that is not and cannot be observed, but is instead inferred by an intellectual error.

There was a time when I'd have agreed with that, but these days I no longer get that far.

In order to reject the concept of a real god, a god with objective existence, (as distinct from an imaginary god, which is anything you like) I'd need to have such a concept. Not only do I lack such a concept, but I can't find one in religious literature either. So there's no definition of a real god that's useful to reasoned enquiry, hence no objective test I know of that we could apply to a candidate to determine whether it were a god or not.

In these threads I talk easily enough about gods, but they're the imaginary ones, not least because there appears not to be any other kind. Were I to talk about a real unicorn, at least I'd know what I meant.

 

[blü 2]

I agree with much of what you say, but I've yet to meet an atheist who does not explicitly claim intellectual superiority as the fundamental reason for their holding a different belief.

Intellectual superiority? But you'd have rebutted such an insubstantial claim with an intellectually watertight definition of a real god, and followed it with a satisfactory demonstration of one, no? And you'd still be enjoying the last laugh!

What's the problem?

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't think it matters why you don't believe as long as you don't believe. The Atheists who put their hands over their eyes and say "I DO NOT BELIEVE" save us a bit of reading.

 

[Augustus]

As any thread on atheism is by definition controversial,

That's top class RF punning

 

[Augustus]

Third, Atheism entails a worldview and is in a sense a "religion", in that rejecting god means rejecting the idea of creation.

One issue with discussion on this subject is that people tend to be discussing an idea on different levels.

Some people like to discuss atheism on the level of the word. The classic RF example is to utilise the letters as the authoritative source of meaning. When people think in terms of words, they try to isolate ideas from context as they believe this brings clarity. This view tends to see ambiguity as a 'problem' to be fixed.

At a different level, what you are doing, is discussing atheism as a living concept. This views sees trying to isolate certain ideas from social context is like trying to isolate the ingredients for a cake. By keeping things separate and clearly defined you change their relationship to each other and miss out on the bigger picture (or cake )

For many people at least, atheism, as a living concept, necessitates a certain kind of worldview (which is the functional equivalent of the ideological component of religions).

On the other hand, atheism the word 'is just...', thus necessitates nothing, and certainly can't be a 'religion', because religion the world means...

Fourth, Atheism therefore has the risk of nihilism.

It's quite common for atheists on RF to come out with some patronising view of religion as a psychological comfort blanket for those who are too afraid or too stupid to face the world on its own merits (implicitly patting themselves on the back for their intellectual superiority).

Yet avoiding nihilism requires the construction of a mythology/narrative to create alternative sources of meaning from our existence. These frequently are based around human exceptionalism (a religious concept), Reason as a form of 'Divine Providence' and a 'salvation narrative' constructed around Progress and freeing ourselves from the clutches of religion and irrationality (Satan) which corrupt our intrinsic goodness.

Fourth, there is no "a-historical" atheism. one of the things that comes up a great deal when people try to define atheism is they reach for the dictionary. This however fails to take into account that how we define words, logic, standards of truth and knowledge, are all ultimately products of history and are historically relative to the times they live in.

As noted above, many Western atheists do tend to be very 'Christian' atheists.

Finally, atheism means the possibility of self-deification. If man created god, he projected his own humanity into the divine. There is no absolute separation between the "human" and the "divine". In a sense therefore, man can live in the pursuit of an absolute but can never attain it. Man can aspire to be gods, increasing human powers of creation (and destruction) as a source of meaning and purpose. However human being will never become gods in an absolute sense, but the pursuit of a "purer" or "fuller" expression of the meaning of humanity is what is meaningful in life. In creating ourselves, we possess and exercise the divine power of creation.

Religions of all kinds have consistently warned against hubris as one of the primary human failings.

Killing the gods puts humans at the top of the tree (as per human exceptionalism) and free to make the world in their image. Possibilities are boundless if we throw away the shackles of religion and tradition (unless they can be 'rationally' verified).

The ancients would say that the 'religion' of Progress is hubristic. For them, Progress is temporary, and what has been gained will be lost in the cycles of history.

History as Progress could easily be described as the deification of Humanity as it reflects the idea that we can transcend our very nature and free ourselves from the the shackles of history/religion/culture that have held us down.

Personally, I'm with the ancients on this one.

 

[Laika]

Ive always had an overall question of how one rejects a god (not the idea or claim) that does not exist. Theist can snswer why they accept a god because they believe one exists. So if they left theism, by definition they have reject it for whatever reason. I wonder what about those of us who never believed in a god/being?

Its really ilogical to reject anything/one non existsnt to begin with. If a person didnt base god's existance on his upbringing and culture, what exactly is he rejecting?

I don't mind if you think its illogical as there isn't a single universal or objective standard of logic by which to judge these beliefs. There are a large number of beliefs in society that are directly descended from Christian beliefs, so I am rejecting them as a domino effect of rejecting god. I agree with Fredrich Nietzsche in that atheism is the "death of god" and should lead to a "transvaluation of all values" which have been derived from that god. It is the way god plays a central role in religious beliefs (mainly abrahamic) so if you take out the creator, then how you view the creation changes as well.

e.g. why is life sacred when there is no god? are humans more valuable than animals because they are made in "god's image"? how do you respond to death when there is no god to pass a final judgement in an afterlife? etc.

Its the same way of thinking, if there is no god, why should I pray, why should I attend church services, why should I celebrate Christmas or Easter if there is no Jesus or if Jesus wasn't "special" for having a direct relationship to god?

You're trying to make more of atheism than there really is. I see no evidence of any god or goddess. Period.....End of story. You seem to want to make more of it than what it is.......
Atheism is not a rejection of the existence of god as you state, it is only a recognition of the absence of any evidence for a god. Atheism isn't necessarily dogmatic nor does it qualify in any way as a 'faith'. Atheism doesn't entail a worldview as you suggest. And there is really nothing about atheism that could evolve through history to my mind, it's always the same 'there is no evidence, end of story'. And your last point, something regarding self deification is beyond my comprehension, I can't begin to imagine where you get this idea. Read anthropology and learn about religion. Men create gods for specific reasons, and religions have a primary social function unrelated to anything transcendental. Religions enforce group identity and solidarity, and each has a unique god or goddess as a centerpiece. Religions, whether true or false, are social organizations first and foremost. My belief is that every church clergy is corrupt, just as every government is corrupt to some degree. Give me your money and I'll promise you heaven.... is that game. Study mythology and the hundreds and hundreds of gods that men have created to get a broader perspective.
Or, simply turn to reality and try to understand what there is evidence for. Science it's called.

I am an atheist, but I'm not you. I am dogmatic. It a faith for me and a worldview. evidence and science are not actually that relevant because they come after the belief as a way to justify it. Not before it. I don't believe religion is a "big lie" or is necessarily corrupt, but it is simply a question of some part of me instinctually says "its wrong" even if I can't explain it.

Something that needs added to the opening post:

How do you define "god?"

Both the terms "atheist" and "theist" are meaningless without defining that word.

I'm going to be subversive and go with "It is not necessary to define god in order to reject them."

Words are made by human beings. They vary from one language to another as a sequence of sounds. they are- outside of a mutually received context- meaningless. It is what they are associated with that gives them meaning. So the word "tree" has no intrinsic meaning. its a series of letters and sounds, but it has an association with a particular object or plant because human beings have interacted with it.

The problem with defining god (if god doesn't exist) is that there is nothing to associate the word "god" with. You have the word "god" but it does not describe an object we can observe. we cannot observe any particular properties of god, so defining it is meaningless. there will be enoumous variety throughout different cultures and historical eras are to what a god is, how many there are and what they can do. These don't exist in isolation but reflect trends within philosophy and logic of the time, such as Christians attempt to find a first cause in a creator as a logical inferrence.

However, if you forced me, I'd define god in relation to the probable "error" of treating consciousness as if it can exist in separation from the brain as a physical product of matter as that is something of a constant between all conceptions of god, irrespective of culture and history. That is much broader and would cover a range of other things than just a deity, such as the soul, ghosts, the afterlife, etc. Its materialism, and I will concede its a dogma as I couldn't defend it intellectually or scientifically., but its what works for me. If atheism is defined in relation to materialism, it still has meaning even without a precise definition of god.

 

[Laika]

There was a time when I'd have agreed with that, but these days I no longer get that far.

In order to reject the concept of a real god, a god with objective existence, (as distinct from an imaginary god, which is anything you like) I'd need to have such a concept. Not only do I lack such a concept, but I can't find one in religious literature either. So there's no definition of a real god that's useful to reasoned enquiry, hence no objective test I know of that we could apply to a candidate to determine whether it were a god or not.

In these threads I talk easily enough about gods, but they're the imaginary ones, not least because there appears not to be any other kind. Were I to talk about a real unicorn, at least I'd know what I meant.

But even if you could talk about Unicorns as if they were real, you'd have to account for different breeds of unicorn within the same species as you would with horses. A definition can only convey a very limited sense of meaning and to try and reduce god to the inability to define it kind of misses the point that man created god and the diversity of gods reflects the genius of human creativity. An object, such as a vase or a pot, does not become more or less real, because you define it.

My cat is currently walking all over me trying to get attention, but that doesn't stop her making it harder to type simply because I can't define "cat". the reality of the cat is not dependent on the accuracy of the concept.

edit:
put another way, if I stand in front of a car when it is driving towards me at 100 miles per hour, my inability to define a car wouldn't stop the impact being almost certainly fatal would it? the car is real no matter the deficiencies of the definition.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't mind if you think its illogical as there isn't a single universal or objective standard of logic by which to judge these beliefs. There are a large number of beliefs in society that are directly descended from Christian beliefs, so I am rejecting them as a domino effect of rejecting god. I agree with Fredrich Nietzsche in that atheism is the "death of god" and should lead to a "transvaluation of all values" which have been derived from that god. It is the way god plays a central role in religious beliefs (mainly abrahamic) so if you take out the creator, then how you view the creation changes as well.

e.g. why is life sacred when there is no god? are humans more valuable than animals because they are made in "god's image"? how do you respond to death when there is no god to pass a final judgement in an afterlife? etc.

Its the same way of thinking, if there is no god, why should I pray, why should I attend church services, why should I celebrate Christmas or Easter if there is no Jesus or if Jesus wasn't "special" for having a direct relationship to god?



I am an atheist, but I'm not you. I am dogmatic. It a faith for me and a worldview. evidence and science are not actually that relevant because they come after the belief as a way to justify it. Not before it. I don't believe religion is a "big lie" or is necessarily corrupt, but it is simply a question of some part of me instinctually says "its wrong" even if I can't explain it.



I'm going to be subversive and go with "It is not necessary to define god in order to reject them."

Words are made by human beings. They vary from one language to another as a sequence of sounds. they are- outside of a mutually received context- meaningless. It is what they are associated with that gives them meaning. So the word "tree" has no intrinsic meaning. its a series of letters and sounds, but it has an association with a particular object or plant because human beings have interacted with it.

The problem with defining god (if god doesn't exist) is that there is nothing to associate the word "god" with. You have the word "god" but it does not describe an object we can observe. we cannot observe any particular properties of god, so defining it is meaningless. there will be enoumous variety throughout different cultures and historical eras are to what a god is, how many there are and what they can do. These don't exist in isolation but reflect trends within philosophy and logic of the time, such as Christians attempt to find a first cause in a creator as a logical inferrence.

However, if you forced me, I'd define god in relation to the probable "error" of treating consciousness as if it can exist in separation from the brain as a physical product of matter as that is something of a constant between all conceptions of god, irrespective of culture and history. That is much broader and would cover a range of other things than just a deity, such as the soul, ghosts, the afterlife, etc. Its materialism, and I will concede its a dogma as I couldn't defend it intellectually or scientifically., but its what works for me. If atheism is defined in relation to materialism, it still has meaning even without a precise definition of god.

You're rejecting christian beliefs thereby rejecting their definition of god?

Im a hardstone atheist. In my opinion, stripping away culture and christianity, if God does not exist, what is the atheist rejecting. If there is nothing. Someone says there is something. You can reject his claim but if the walked away without any claim, nothing is still there.

So if I said for you to reject that nothing without giving you a definition of what it was, would that make sense that I ask you that question?

Also, since nothing is there, I would think both sides are making their argument very complicated when it doesnt need to be.

Okay. Sorry. My rant.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One issue with discussion on this subject is that people tend to be discussing an idea on different levels.

Some people like to discuss atheism on the level of the word. The classic RF example is to utilise the letters as the authoritative source of meaning. When people think in terms of words, they try to isolate ideas from context as they believe this brings clarity. This view tends to see ambiguity as a 'problem' to be fixed.

At a different level, what you are doing, is discussing atheism as a living concept. This views sees trying to isolate certain ideas from social context is like trying to isolate the ingredients for a cake. By keeping things separate and clearly defined you change their relationship to each other and miss out on the bigger picture (or cake )

For many people at least, atheism, as a living concept, necessitates a certain kind of worldview (which is the functional equivalent of the ideological component of religions).

On the other hand, atheism the word 'is just...', thus necessitates nothing, and certainly can't be a 'religion', because religion the world means...



It's quite common for atheists on RF to come out with some patronising view of religion as a psychological comfort blanket for those who are too afraid or too stupid to face the world on its own merits (implicitly patting themselves on the back for their intellectual superiority).

Yet avoiding nihilism requires the construction of a mythology/narrative to create alternative sources of meaning from our existence. These frequently are based around human exceptionalism (a religious concept), Reason as a form of 'Divine Providence' and a 'salvation narrative' constructed around Progress and freeing ourselves from the clutches of religion and irrationality (Satan) which corrupt our intrinsic goodness.



As noted above, many Western atheists do tend to be very 'Christian' atheists.



Religions of all kinds have consistently warned against hubris as one of the primary human failings.

Killing the gods puts humans at the top of the tree (as per human exceptionalism) and free to make the world in their image. Possibilities are boundless if we throw away the shackles of religion and tradition (unless they can be 'rationally' verified).

The ancients would say that the 'religion' of Progress is hubristic. For them, Progress is temporary, and what has been gained will be lost in the cycles of history.

History as Progress could easily be described as the deification of Humanity as it reflects the idea that we can transcend our very nature and free ourselves from the the shackles of history/religion/culture that have held us down.

Personally, I'm with the ancients on this one.

Whats a Christian Atheist?

 

[Laika]

You're rejecting christian beliefs thereby rejecting their definition of god?

Im a hardstone atheist. In my opinion, stripping away culture and christianity, if God does not exist, what is the atheist rejecting. If there is nothing. Someone says there is something. You can reject his claim but if the walked away without any claim, nothing is still there.

So if I said for you to reject that nothing without giving you a definition of what it was, would that make sense that I ask you that question?

Also, since nothing is there, I would think both sides are making their argument very complicated when it doesnt need to be.

Okay. Sorry. My rant.

No worries. I think your asking a question about "nothing" and I'm probably not qualified to answer it. But I'll have a go.

If I were to try to guess, nothing is not an absolute condition. nothing describes a state that exists within dimensions of time and space. nothing therefore has properties but these properties have an absence in relation to something. i.e. A vacuum is nothing in relation to air, but it still will have dimensions, especially if it is an artificial vacuum.

If god is "nothing", it is a very powerful nothing that has had a tremendous impact on the entire cultural, political and intellectual history of mankind. the impact of belief in god is something, even if the concept of god is still nothing. perhaps, you could say atheism "nothing" but is still "something" in relation to theism.

An Atheist Christmas may not have tinsel, presents or a tree (i.e. "nothing") , but it is still a day on the calendar that could well be used for something else (i.e. "something"). God may be "nothing", but in relation to the fact people are willing to dedicate their lives to that belief in a deity, are willing to make so many sacrifices or even face death for persecution for their beliefs, it is still "something". the willingness of people to believe in that deity and its wider impact doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no deity.

Whats a Christian Atheist?

A form of cultural christianity basically:
Christian atheism | Wikiwand

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Something that needs added to the opening post:

How do you define "god?"

Both the terms "atheist" and "theist" are meaningless without defining that word.

Once you read the OPs in full, you see a pattern its the abrahamic god. Pagans dont try to defend existence of their gods when asked. A lot of times either they associate the attempt of the other party to relate it to the abrahamic god when thats not the explicit intent or their god(s) are personal enough to deny explanation and debate. Hindu and Buddhist dont debate our gods. Its a cultural thing. Also, Hindu gods are defined so different to the average RF god debater he would have no fun with first defining the broad concept of Brahman compared to Brahma and then find which sect they should question as well as which incarnation.

RF Jews dont debate god nor define it. Muslims tend to talk among themselves. So, by default, start with the christian god and work from there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No worries. I think your asking a question about "nothing" and I'm probably not qualified to answer it. But I'll have a go.

If I were to try to guess, nothing is not an absolute condition. nothing describes a state that exists within dimensions of time and space. nothing therefore has properties but these properties have an absence in relation to something. i.e. A vacuum is nothing in relation to air, but it still will have dimensions, especially if it is an artificial vacuum.

If god is "nothing", it is a very powerful nothing that has had a tremendous impact on the entire cultural, political and intellectual history of mankind. the impact of belief in god is something, even if the concept of god is still nothing. perhaps, you could say atheism "nothing" but is still "something" in relation to theism.

An Atheist Christmas may not have tinsel, presents or a tree (i.e. "nothing") , but it is still a day on the calendar that could well be used for something else (i.e. "something"). God may be "nothing", but in relation to the fact people are willing to dedicate their lives to that belief in a deity, are willing to make so many sacrifices or even face death for persecution for their beliefs, it is still "something". the willingness of people to believe in that deity and its wider impact doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no deity.



A form of cultural christianity basically:
Christian atheism | Wikiwand

Woah. Tongue twister. It makes sense on first round, complicated makes sense nonethless. Have to reread.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

even if the concept of god is still nothing. perhaps, you could say atheism "nothing" but is still "something" in relation to theism.

Reminds me of The Neverending Story. The Nothing (a blind spot no particles etc) was destroying the land of Fantastica. It was a "thing" in relation to what actually existed "something" but it was Nothing nonetheless for if itbwere something, like a dried up lake that had water, that would be something. But the nothing blott that out too.

is still "something". the willingness of people to believe in that deity and its wider impact doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no deity.

So we treat the nothing as if were something just because People's definition of it created its existence rather than it existing isolated from people?

Going back to god....that would mean god is an isolated being that can influence society for if god was defined as a mystery (the unseen. The unknown.) in relation to the known, an atheist would need to reject and address the people who hold that belief. Without people (something) god would not exist.

So by this convoluted logic there would be no such thing as atheism because atheists are fussing about the existence of a vacuum that has no properties other than its relation to something. And theists are trying to define that vacuum which got athiests to reject their definition and influence and not the vacuum itself. (If thats so, its best to say one rejects the claim not the vacuum. Makes more sense that way)

 

[Laika]

Woah. Tongue twister. It makes sense on first round, complicated makes sense nonethless. Have to reread.

I'm not sure about it, but I thought I would have a go.

Reminds me of The Neverending Story. The Nothing (a blind spot no particles etc) was destroying the land of Fantastica. It was a "thing" in relation to what actually existed "something" but it was Nothing nonetheless for if itbwere something, like a dried up lake that had water, that would be something. But the nothing blott that out too.

That sounds right actually.

So we treat the nothing as if were something just because People's definition of it created its existence rather than it existing isolated from people?

Yes. (I think) The effects of the belief are real, even if the object described in the belief isn't. The temple is real, the people praying are real, but what they are praying to isn't.

Going back to god....that would mean god is an isolated being that can influence society for if god was defined as a mystery (the unseen. The unknown.) in relation to the known, an atheist would need to reject and address the people who hold that belief. Without people (something) god would not exist.

Yes. I'm with you on that.

So by this convoluted logic there would be no such thing as atheism because atheists are fussing about the existence of a vacuum that has no properties other than its relation to something. And theists are trying to define that vacuum which got athiests to reject their definition and influence and not the vacuum itself. (If thats so, its best to say one rejects the claim not the vacuum. Makes more sense that way)

That would be true if atheism as an absolute "nothing", but it's not. The effect of theism is something, therefore the effect of atheism as a rejection of the effect of theism is something. In so far as atheism is an alternative way of living and believing without belief in god, it is "something". Hence Atheism is a faith and a religion because it takes the "something" of theism and uses it for "something else" (self-deification of man for instance).

i.e. Theists celebrate Christmas. If an atheist doesn't celebrate Christmas, it doesn't mean December 25th doesn't exist, it mean that they use it for something else. The association with December 25th is lost, but the existence of the day doesn't change.

If this is confusing, don't worry, I'm not 100% sure I'm even making sense at this point. But I'm having a go and I think that makes a difference in the end. hopefully, I'll get better at explaining what I mean by all this...

 

[England my lionheart]

Good post BTW,for myself I look at the most religious places in the world praying every day with strong belief in a better world after they are dead,I see that their dedication brings zilch.

That said it's mostly that there is no proof, no proof no belief,the afore mentioned swings the meter.

 

[Laika]

Good post BTW,for myself I look at the most religious places in the world praying every day with strong belief in a better world after they are dead,I see that their dedication brings zilch.

That said it's mostly that there is no proof, no proof no belief,the afore mentioned swings the meter.

Thanks. I was genuinely unsure how it would be received as its not typical for RF, particularly as atheism is so controversial. The dedication people put into their beliefs is admirable and often virtuous in many ways, but if its not true it does make it a wasted effort sadly in terms of its consequences.

That's top class RF punning

Oh, and in case there was any doubt, don't worry Augustus. I'm not ignoring you, it's just we agree on pretty much everything.

 

[blü 2]

But even if you could talk about Unicorns as if they were real, you'd have to account for different breeds of unicorn within the same species as you would with horses.

If I found a real equine animal with a natural single straight horn on its forehead, which, with humans, would only consent to being approached by virgin females and, perhaps optionally, was white, I could, after a satisfactory vet inspection, say, "That's a unicorn".

For God to be real, [he] must have objective existence, must exist independently of any brain holding the concept of [him]. Otherwise at best [he]'s imaginary.

But God has no description as a real being, no physical attributes, at all. So unlike the unicorn, there's no coherent concept of a real god. More, since this fact passes unremarked among believers, it' appears they don't think of God as real anyway. That is, God's a mental construct, not a real being at all.

if I stand in front of a car when it is driving towards me at 100 miles per hour, my inability to define a car wouldn't stop the impact being almost certainly fatal would it?

Just by calling it a car you evoke a fully intelligible concept of a real physical object, one with objective existence.

The correct analogy for God would be, say, the absence of anything in particular. To encounter that will not normally be a problem, no matter how fast I'm traveling.