Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 43 of 414 (551389)
03-22-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 3:31 PM


Hi CS,
Getting bogged down in definitions is, as ever, a bit of a waste of time. Here are the key points as I see them;
The only idea that unites all atheists is a lack of belief in deities. Within that group, a range of opinion exists. Some simply lack belief, others actively believe that no gods exist, still others (although very few) are completely certain that no gods could possibly exist. Some are hostile to the idea of gods, others might wish it were true. Some might hate religion, others might think religion a good thing, even if if it mistaken in some respects. And so on...
All these people might self-identify as atheists, but the only idea that could be said to unite them all is a lack of belief in deities. That is why many of us see it as being the only central tenet of atheism.
Whether atheism is a belief, a lack of belief or whatever else you want to call it doesn't really concern me much. It's all semantics. It's an idea, an opinion about the universe. Whatever you like.
The main problem with Den's silly argument is that what he describes is not atheism but closer to nihilism. Now you could say that nihilism is a subset of atheism, since, by definition, a nihilist could not believe in gods, but that doesn't make atheism equivalent to nihilism any more than Christianity is equivalent to Arianism.
It's just a silly argument, seemingly designed to get up people's noses. You shouldn't be surprised to find atheist hackles very much in the "up" position in this thread. The OP is just so bad...
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 4:32 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-24-2010 12:43 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 49 of 414 (551410)
03-22-2010 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 4:32 PM


Yes, and I find that some of those sub-groups of atheism are quite religious, themselves. That is the point I'm making.
I think that you are obscuring your point through your choice of terminology. "Religious" is an odd way to describe those who virulently deny deities. It is an absurd way to describe those who have no orthodoxy of belief,no temples, no shared rituals, etc. If you want to criticise the more extreme elements of atheist thought, you would do better to use more precise terms. Try, "overconfident", "dogmatic", "religiose" even, but using the term "religious" is guaranteed to cause only dispute and confusion.
It's also a bit weird that the atheists who you consider to most resemble your own position, religiosity, are the most objectionable.
Any time a subset of the group is chastized the whole group comes in to smear away the distinction of the subset by removing all qualifiers of the groups.
Perhaps this is happening because the OP is an explicit attempt to tar all atheists with a brush that only applies to a vanishingly small subset.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 5:14 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 104 by Woodsy, posted 03-23-2010 4:37 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 67 of 414 (551477)
03-22-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
03-22-2010 8:28 PM


Hi Marc,
I suspect that there are few vocal right-wing atheists because many secular-minded folks are worried about the extant to which Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity now influence the political right in the USA. In Europe, religion is far less of a political football. There are groups like the Conservative Humanist Association, which affiliated to both the British Humanist Association and the Conservative Party. This is despite the presence of many vocal religious advocates on the Conservative benches.
They're not united by evolution?
They're not united by belief in gravity?
Atheism has little or nothing to do with evolution. It only looks that way to you because you're coming at it backwards. Certain forms of Christianity (amongst other religions) have a problem with evolution. No-one else does. That leaves all the non-creationist Christians, agnostics, atheists, deists, all other moderate theists etc., with no reason to deny the obvious. There is no need for anyone to deny evolution unless they belong to certain religious sects. Atheists don't deny evolution because we have no reason to.
Mutate and Survive
PS, regarding your avatar; yes, twice, but my aim with a shoe is improving...
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 03-22-2010 8:28 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 11:55 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 03-23-2010 8:20 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 73 of 414 (551539)
03-23-2010 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Den
03-23-2010 12:31 AM


Hello? Den?
The irony is strong in this one.
Thank you for sharing your views on Atheism. From reading your comments it is very easy to see from who/where your influences stem.
Funny, I was just about to say the same to you.
I now have a better understanding of what Atheism means, it means to be a free thinker, and free thinking to an Athiest means repeating what someone else has said.
Would you care to expand upon that at all? In particular, would you like to explain why that is so much worse an idea than citing millennia-old religious texts as inerrant holy writ?
See Den, we could have an actual grown-up conversation here, like two mature adults, or you could go on taking lame pot-shots at your straw-man version atheism. It's really your choice. You should be aware though, that this is a debate board. You are expected to justify your arguments here. If you want to spew venom without ever addressing any criticism, go get a blog.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 12:31 AM Den has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 79 of 414 (551549)
03-23-2010 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Den
03-23-2010 1:17 AM


Certainty and Deities
Hi Den,
Haha sorry, but I feel half the time Im just listening to Dawkins repeat himself.
Well, you did grossly misrepresent his views in your "Dawkins Made Me a Better Person" thread. It's only natural that people are going to take you to task on that and show you some of his real opinions.
For the record, whilst I agree with Dawkins on much, I don't regard him as some kind of all-knowing guru. I disagree with him on some issues. The suggestion that atheists call ourselves "Brights" for instance; Dawkins was cautiously positive about the idea. I regard it as patently stupid, arrogant, risible, self-defeating, sanctimonious tripe. Each to his own, eh?
I think its interesting that Athiests can argue that their commitiment to a non belief doesnt dampen their objective thought process, I have thus proposed a new topic of allowing these people the opportunity to prove such claims - new topic section ; Why Athiesm = Impossible to find any answers.
Yes, you've started a number of topics. That's only of value though if you actually participate.
I know from the weakness of my own debilitating ego that I must not commit myself to anything unless I am completely certain,
You can't have much to commit to then.
this is why I question your resolve on a matter which is completely unprovable at this point in human history.
If one allows supernatural explanations, then nothing is provable. Personally, I don't claim to be 100% certain of anything. All I have is a spectrum of certainty and uncertainty. Some ideas I'm more sure of than others. Since I have never seen any evidence of a god, I see no reason to believe in them. I can't claim to be 100% certain that no gods exist, but nor can I claim to be 100% certain that the Machine Elves from the Other Side don't exist.
Many theists on the other hand, are happy to claim utter certainty about their fantastical claims of deities, always without a shred of evidence. I think I'll stick to atheism for now if that's aright with you.
Mutate and Survive
Added by Edit; You know, the board software here allows us to target our replies to the person for whom they are intended. This creates a chain of linked messages which is much easier to follow. Just use the "Reply" button in the bottom right of the post you want to reply to, this button here;
This makes it clearer who you're talking to and (with some members, depending on their preferences) will send an email notification of your reply to the member you're talking to. ore posting tips here; Posting Tips Cheers.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:17 AM Den has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 112 of 414 (551700)
03-23-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
03-23-2010 8:20 PM


Evolution and Atheism
Hi Marc,
Granny writes:
Atheism has little or nothing to do with evolution.
marc9000 writes:
ooookay.
Seriously! These are two separate questions: do gods exist?; is evolution responsible for the diversity of life? Really, they have nothing to do with one another. The answer could be yes to both. Or no to both. Or yes to one, no to the other, in either combination.
In my opinion, the only reason that atheism is associated with belief in evolution is because denial of evolution is the exclusive preserve of theists. Theists have often based their arguments upon ideas that would later come to be superseded by evolution.
Theists have been very keen to use arguments from design to justify their beliefs in God. I think that before the Theory of Evolution emerged as a viable alternative, these arguments, though bad, would have appeared compelling. They may have been flawed arguments, but there was no alternative available. I can only contemplate what I might have thought about God had I lived in the early Nineteenth Century, before Darwin's publication of the Origin. Evolution was poorly developed back then, with no known mechanism. Under such circumstances, I can see how the Paley's argument from design might be appealing.
None of this has anything to do with atheism though, not directly. The only link is that evolution shoots down the argument from design, or a the very least, provides a credible alternative. With one more argument for God eliminated, atheism is one step closer.
It's not the fault of atheists if religions found their arguments upon ideas which then proceed to get shot down by science. Religion has painted itself into a corner by using God-of-the-gaps arguments. As science fills those gaps, religion is inevitably going to be driven back.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 03-23-2010 8:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 127 of 414 (551739)
03-24-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
03-24-2010 12:43 AM


Hi Bluejay,
Firstly, I more or less agree with your definition of religion. I'd probably emphasize more the value of faith that religions share. I think we all recognise a religion when we see them though.
Is unitedness a requirement for things to be called "religions"?
I would say that yes, for a cluster of related ideas to qualify as a religion, there should be some unifying concepts that all (or almost all) of its adherents ascribe to. I think most religions have such core statements of faith, with differing amounts of importance being placed on the importance of accepting these core beliefs. There may be hundreds of other ideas associated with a religion, but I think that most religions identify themselves by their core shared beliefs, also differentiating themselves from other (related) religious groups by those beliefs they do not share.
Would atheism become a religion if it consisted of two unifyin ideas? Or three? Personally, I don't think so. That would mean all ideologies and all philosophies are also religions.
I agree. All religions have unifying ideas, but not all philosophies with unifying ideas are religions.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 03-24-2010 12:43 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 03-24-2010 2:56 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 133 of 414 (551757)
03-24-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Den
03-24-2010 2:24 AM


Perfectly Irrelevant
Hi Den,
Hmm...
Den writes:
This is why I accept that perfection is completely subjective to the individual, either man or animal. I cant make it any clearer simpler than that.
So why did you bring it up then? If perfection is, as you say, an entirely subjective concern, why did you say this;
Den writes:
You say Nature as stupid,wasteful and cruel?
Thats just your perception of reality. Everything is perfect, take that new pencil on your desk, break it, its now a perfect broken pencil. Nothing is wasted in nature, nothing is wrong or imperfect, Nature is a perfect cycle of transformation, from the sun which transforms Hydrogen to Helium, to the plants that transform light into plant matter, to the tiger which transforms antelopes into baby tigers. Nothing is wasted, Nature in all its forms is perfect.
in Message 89?
If perfection is wholly subjective, a wholly personal judgement, why bring it up? You say nature is perfect. I say it's not. According to your logic neither, neither opinion matters because they are both equally subjective and thus equally valid. So why mention it?
Instead of undermining your own arguments, perhaps you should start afresh and explain, if you can, just why you think atheism and morality should be mutually exclusive.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Den, posted 03-24-2010 2:24 AM Den has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 148 of 414 (551869)
03-24-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Blue Jay
03-24-2010 2:56 PM


Bluejay, i completely agree with your comments about atheism being a possible tenet of wider belief systems, but not a belief system in itself. It could be a tenet of Humanism for example, but it is not a broad philosophy.
I also agree with your assessment of the motivations behind the labelling of atheism as a religion. Straw-man atheists, like the ones in Den's OP make much more appealing villains than the real-world variety.
I think the irony of it is that we (the religious) end up---as we always seem to do---obfuscating the meaning of things we hold dear (the very concept of "religion," in this case), and even maligning those things by using them as rhetorical devices to denigrate our "enemies."
I know, it's just so weird. You'd think that religious folks would see "religious" as being a compliment, but it is often levelled at atheists as if it were an insult. When it is used this way, it often seems to be a synonym for "dogmatic", "zealous", "closed-minded" or "extremist". A classic case of projection I say.
Honestly, my only major complaint against religion is that it's too flippin' religious... if that makes sense.
Yeah, it does make sense. That must be an uncomfortable position to be in though. I don't envy you.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 03-24-2010 2:56 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2010 5:33 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 151 of 414 (552010)
03-25-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by New Cat's Eye
03-25-2010 5:33 PM


"Religious" as a Negative Label
Hi CS,
It seems to me that the neo-atheists want to distance themselves as far from being religious as possible. To them, it could be an insult.
I understand that. It is used as an insult because the people who are being criticised are likely to view it as such. I get that. What I don't get is why you would use "religious" in such a way as to make it synonymous with all religion's worst qualities. Using "religion" in this sense gives the appearance that religion is primarily characterised by zealotry, dogmatism, intolerance, etc., as if these were its most vital distinguishing features. Now even I would not go quite that far in criticising religion and I am wholly opposed to it. It seems bizarre that you should be willing to turn the word "religion" into a negative label and yet still apply it to yourself, however tentatively.
And then I see them displaying just those things you mention.
So when I say they're religious, they fall back on:
"Nuh-uh... atheism is just a lack of belief in god and nothing more"
Well, they ARE acting like religious people.
Acting like, yes. Actually a religion, no.
I think that by arguing this way you are giving adolescent atheists an easy way to avoid legitimate criticism. If they are being childish, or over-zealous, say that. Don't hand them an easy out by using easily equivocated terms.
Saying to someone "You are behaving in the same way as those religious people you criticise" may be a legitimate criticism. "You are religious" is not though, it's never going to be and you are just scoring an own-goal by talking that way.
Also, if you will read Youtube comments, expect to see people of all stripes behaving like childish jack-asses. That's par for the course in Youtube comments, most of which seem to be written by semi-literate idiots. I suspect that most of them are young and when they mature they'll find better things to do.
It seems that they use their "pure" atheism to fuel something bigger and then when their hypocrisy is pointed out, they fall back onto the "pure" form. Well I think its bogus.
You're probably right, but fortunately there is an easy solution; make specific criticisms that can't be so easily brushed off. If people are making statements that go beyond what we might call pure atheism, then they should justify those statements independently, not just resort to falling back on pure atheism. That would be poor form. The thing is that by casting accusations about religion, you are making it easier for them to pull this trick and move the goalposts.
That's a great way to put it!
This damn religion is too religious
I see where you and Bluejay are coming form here, but again, this implies that "religious" primarily describes negative qualities. You can see why I find this odd.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-25-2010 5:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-26-2010 10:35 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 187 of 414 (554799)
04-10-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Den
04-10-2010 8:32 AM


Porky Pies
Den,
I didnt know I believed in God until I met you Athiests here
You are a pathetic liar Den. I'd give up on lying as a bad lot if I were you. You're not very convincing.
Mutate and Survive
PS; It's "didn't" and "atheists".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Den, posted 04-10-2010 8:32 AM Den has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024