Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 126 of 414 (551736)
03-24-2010 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Granny Magda
03-22-2010 4:04 PM


Hi, Granny.
I certainly don't think atheism is a religion, but I do need to ask a question in response to this:
Granny Magda writes:
The only idea that unites all atheists is a lack of belief in deities.
Is unitedness a requirement for things to be called "religions"?
Would atheism become a religion if it consisted of two unifying ideas? Or three? Personally, I don't think so. That would mean all ideologies and all philosophies are also religions.
I think it's obvious that atheism is just a single concept, and I think it's equally obvious that religions don't ever comprise only a single concept*. It would be the equivalent of saying that faith is a religion, or that Last Thursdayism is a religion, or that belief in the Fall is a religion.
*I have now made it my personal mission to invent a religion that consists of only one single concept. I will incoporate it into a short story somehow.
I just think this whole argument raises questions about what, exactly, "religion" is. As it stands, it seems that most of us think religions are belief systems or philosophies that incorporate some sort of devotion or observance, as well as a belief in something that could be described as "supernatural."
If we can agree on that definition of "religion," I think we can conclude that atheism is not a religion.
Edited by Bluejay, : In normal English, attributive verbs are created with the suffix, "-ing," whereas, in American English, the suffix is sometimes shortened to "-in"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2010 4:04 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Granny Magda, posted 03-24-2010 12:56 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 128 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-24-2010 1:17 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 146 of 414 (551850)
03-24-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Granny Magda
03-24-2010 12:56 AM


Hi, Granny.
I think the image I'm getting from what you and others have said on this thread is that atheism could be thought of as a tenet to which some religion or philosophy could include as part of its "doctrines," but cannot feasibly be called a "religion" or "philosophy" on its own.
Because the tenet of atheism is the biggest affront to most western religions, it tends to get blamed for everything that opposes or contradicts those religions. So, it becomes the buzzword, like "evolutionist," and people start thinking that it, combined with all the other things that they lump together as its baggage, is a religion. And, that little notion has all kinds of rhetorical power.
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."
Honestly, my only major complaint against religion is that it's too flippin' religious... if that makes sense.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Granny Magda, posted 03-24-2010 12:56 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Granny Magda, posted 03-24-2010 8:59 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(3)
Message 269 of 414 (774801)
12-22-2015 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by kbertsche
12-21-2015 1:50 PM


Hi, kbertsche.
Forgive me for butting in here, but I wanted to add some of my own thoughts to Diomedes' and AZPaul's.
kbertsche writes:
We cannot prove scientific theories. Yet we believe that many scientific theories are true, based on evidence. We are convinced of them, even though we cannot prove them.
In the purest language of logic, we wouldn't say we 'believe' or 'are convinced': we would say we 'tentatively accept' or 'cannot reject.'
This is where the atheist lies. We reject the 'god' hypothesis, because we can't back it up with empirical evidence. This results in our accepting the null hypothesis, which is that god does not exist.
In my mind, the difference lies in the difference between 'accepting' and 'believing'.
'Accepting' is what good scientists and empiricists are supposed to do as a means of making proper decisions, and they are supposed to be willing to change which hypotheses they accept based on a re-evaluation of the evidence.
'Believing' is what good crusaders and salespersons are supposed to do as a way of promoting a cause or agenda. It generally implies some level of resistance to re-evaluating the evidence.
So, the 'ideal atheist' (i.e., the type of atheist we all claim to be and would like everyone to believe we are) would be an empiricist who currently lacks belief in god but is genuinely willing to consider re-evaluating evidence for the existence of god, as opposed to being .
The number of us that actually live up to that ideal is probably quite small (most of us are probably more resistant to theistic ideas than is strictly rational), but that's just the classically human trait of falling short of our ideals. Everybody is a work in progress, right?

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 12-21-2015 1:50 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by kbertsche, posted 12-23-2015 11:35 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 272 of 414 (774864)
12-23-2015 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by kbertsche
12-23-2015 11:35 AM


Hi, kbertsche.
What you're saying sounds a lot like what I was trying to say, so I suppose we are in total agreement about how scientists operate.
Where we may still differ is in how this assessment of scientists applies to atheists, so I'd like to solicit your thoughts on that matter.
In my opinion, the same argument about scientists applies to atheists. Atheists on this forum always present ourselves in the 'idealized' fashion: that is, we say we lack belief in deity, and do not actually assert its non-existence.
In practice though, we are highly biased against theistic propositions, which is effectively the same thing as 'believing' that god does not exist.
I would argue that the bias is justified on pragmatic grounds (i.e. for the same resource-allocation arguments you were making about science); but I would also argue that the bias is in tension with our claim that we do nor disbelieve, bu tsimply lack beliefs.
I believe the tension can be entirely attributed to our failures as imperfect humans to live up to our idealized aspirations. I feel like this gives us a comfortable 'middle ground' that may solve the discrepancy in the two sides' opinions on the whole 'what is an atheist' debate?
Edited by Blue Jay, : No reason given.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by kbertsche, posted 12-23-2015 11:35 AM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 12-23-2015 9:27 PM Blue Jay 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