Really? I don't think you actually believe that. What about essentially every culture known to mankind throughout history that did exactly this? Superstition, creating a shared mythos or understanding of how the world works, this is what almost every people group we have ever observed does.
So you are assuming ignorance about the way the world works, too? Religious belief, I’ll add is not necessarily theistic. Nor is that degree of cultural development necessarily going to occur in a single generation. So I have to say that I don’t agree.
I agree in the first half, but disagree with the second; atheism would be equally as much of a nonsense term. What's more, as seen throughout history, the human default seems to be attaching spiritual significance and meaning to things, even if they are not inherently spiritual. We are spiritual beings, it seems.
I think you are exaggerating here, too. I think a lot of people pay lip service to “spiritual significance” without considering much of it truly significant. And, again, the ‘spiritual” is not limited to the theistic.
Further, “atheism” is often extended to include the absence of the belief that a God exists, which would cover the situation perfectly.
Whew, a lot to unpack here. Haha. I never declared any belief off-limits!
You’ve declared that holding the belief that there is no God is arrogant in itself. No matter how it’s held or why.
I have been an atheist and have atheist friends who I love. If you're an atheist, cool man. I'm not mad about it, and I'd love to understand how you got there. However, to not acknowledge that atheism is a faith stance, and for one to act as if they are more objective than anyone else, or have received some objective truth nobody else has is pretty intellectually arrogant.
You’re adding to your original claim:
To me, atheism is just as arrogant as fundamentalist religion or dogmatic scientism, and I have the same issues with all three
None of the things you object to above are necessary parts of atheism. Even if you stick with the common definition of “atheism” as the belief that there is no God.
Now, I will contend that my view is not a “faith position” unless you extend that term to include any belief that is not held with absolute certainty. I would further contend it is rational - and more rational than many of the arguments I’ve seen here to the contrary. I certainly don’t claim to “received some objective truth nobody else has” and I regard such a claim as ludicrous.
It's the same sort of dogmatism non-religious folks dislike in fundamentalist religious people, and I would come against that just as strong.
So you were claiming that all atheists display that dogmatism? Because you didn’t include any qualifications - you just referred to “atheism” - and therefore all atheists.
You define atheism as a provisional stance
No, I don’t. I define “atheism” as holding the belief that there is no God (in deference to common use). That does not say anything about how the belief is held. Dogmatic atheism is possible, but it’s certainly not the only possibility.
Curious how this differs in your mind from a more agnostic stance?
Under the original definition it is agnosticism, since I don’t claim to know that there is no God. However agnosticism is more commonly thought of as not taking even a provisional position on the existence of God. So that is a pretty clear distinction.
To me, when the word "atheism" is used, it is used to mean a non-openness to supernatural data. Do you feel like this is an accurate representation of where you are at?
I don’t think that is part of any definition of “atheism” I’ve ever seen. I take a very sceptical view of supernatural claims and I believe that is justified. False claims of the supernatural are certainly common, while stringently confirmed claims seem to be non-existent. For instance we had an extended discussion of an alleged “prophet” here, some years ago, and I have to say that the evidence gave no reason to believe that there was anything supernatural going on.
Edited by PaulK, : Correct a couple of typos