Atheism, Regimes and belief systems

I have seen a lot of comments on this board using the Soviet Union as an example of why atheism is bad/wrong/etc.... However, I think that this argument only shows that the person making it has very little understanding of what atheism is. I am an atheist... but it's a very small part of my belief system. All it means to me is that I lack belief in god(s). It has nothing to do with my views on morality or other things along those lines. Atheists typically base their worldviews on broader philosophies like secular humanism.The soviet union was bad because of their oiligarchical communist system, not because they were atheist. Atheism doesn't speak to much, only the lack of belief in god(s). One could be a facist athiest, a liberal atheist or a socialist atheist.Don't make atheism out to be more than it is. Atheism is a much more narrow philsophy then something like Chrisitianity.So let's have a discussion about what atheism speaks to, what it is and what it isn't.Good article expanind on many of these ideas:http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9169.htm

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

OK...how so?

Good question Phat...Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s).I could be for women's rights or against women's rights and still be atheist.I could be racist or a proponent of diversity and still be atheist.I could be socialist or facist and still be atheist.Christianity has other rules that come along with a belief in god and jesus. The 10 commandments... Golden rule, etc. Atheism has none of these things. It only answers one small question about belief in the super natural.As you can see on this board... There are atheists and christians who share many, many beleifs.

In addition...An atheism can believe in absolute morality or in relative morality. Moral belief systems are external to atheism.In fact, an atheist could certainly adopt the christian definition of morality because he thought it was a good idea (although he/she would not believe it was derived from god)Hopefull this will clear up many misconceptions about atheists and atheism.In fact, there is only one thinga all atheists have in common:a lack of belief in god(s)

So I am guessing that an atheist does not believe in any spiritual realm that is non-detecable by current scientific means or by observation.In other words, is the answer to that one small question a No?

I don't agree that atheism is a philosphy what so ever. It is merely the lack of belief in any gods (for weak atheism), or belief there is no god(s), (in the case of strong atheism)There might be philosphies that include atheism, but atheism isn't a philopsphy per say.

Ramoss, That is exactly what I am trying to say. I think people lump in a lot of things with atheism that they shouldn't. (like moral relativism... which I believe in, but which has nothing to do with atheism)

By definition, even if an individual believes in no gods or deities, we need acknowledge that the idea of human wisdom as a source unto itself is a fundamentally grounded belief. At least, IMHO.

As an illustration I would suggest that atheism should be classed more with monotheism than with particular religions.Both represent views on the number of Gods that exist. Both permit widely divergent views on other matters.t

Would you say that an atheist is a broad term that defines human wisdom as the source of all knowledge that we as a human species have access to? In other words, would you assert that the answer to the question comes from what atheism in general considers as the source of all wisdom? (Think human)This message has been edited by Phat, 04-15-2006 06:03 AM

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Hi Phat! In a word, "no". What you've described here is philosophical (or metaphysical) naturalism. Atheism makes no knowledge claims beyond the simple "there is no god". How we arrive at that conclusion varies. I think PaulK is closest to the mark: atheism can be likened to monotheism with the one remaining god eliminated.Remember the old line of argumentation? It goes something like this:Atheist: "Do you believe in Odin, Osirus, Marduk, etc?"Monotheist Believer: "No, of course not. There is only one God."Atheist: "Then you are an atheist with reference to all other deities. You deny their existence. We are, in essence, the same. I merely believe in one less god than you do."Or words to that effect. Again, I would say "no", in general. Certainly, atheism is compatible with metaphysical naturalism, but the one doesn't necessarily pre-suppose the other. Atheism itself doesn't make any statement concerning epistemology. In fact, metaphysical naturalism may be less supportable than atheism itself, philosophically speaking. The strong claim of metaphysical naturalism as an epistemology may be incorrect - there could conceivably be other ways of "knowing".Atheists likely arrived at their position in as many different ways as there are atheists. Some may even have derived it from metaphysical naturalism, but not by definition...Hope that makes sense.

Actually most religions are anti-theistic in regards to the other religions, while most {weak form} atheists don't go that far, only the {strong form} types (like Dawkins).

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hey RAZD. I don't think I disagree with you. However, would you elaborate a little? I'm not sure I follow the second half of the sentence (after the first comma).

i think the solution is that he doesn't have to think that the wisdom you speak of exists. he simply lives and responds to the circumstances he's dealt. there is no need for higher wisdom because there isn't anything higher. therefore, the only wisdom is to not get killed.i think it's a smashing way to live. namely, i think a little of this could get rid of a lot of the crap we have going on right now.