Atheism Examined

What is atheism?Is it simply a disbelief in deities of any kind or is it more than that?
Is it in practice a philosophical position regards faith and belief in that it is inherently anti-faith?
Faith in anything not just deities?Does it in fact take faith to be a atheist?
(there is a book by Norma Geisler titled "I do not have enough faith to be an atheist" which I am paraphrasing)Many critics of atheism seem to imply that atheism is an excuse to be morally flexible and that with no firm foundation for morality atheists are all too willing to attack the moral basis of others whilst refusing to to defend the basis of their own 'slippery' position.
Is this true? Do atheists necessarily lack a firm sense of the moral and immoral?To those who would describe themselves as atheists - What led them to this conclusion?
To those non-atheists - Is atheism a logically viable position? If not why not?Do atheists and non-atheists have the same view of what exactly atheism is??My own position is as follows -
I would describe myself as an atheist. I started along this path with a general dissatisfaction with organised religion and some scientific training that fostered in me the attitude that tentative, evidence based research was the only reliable method to evaluate supposed truths about the world.Add to this the axiom that the burden of proof should be on that which is to be believed (as opposed to believing until disproved) and a broad examination of the main theistic religions, all of which claim to be the 'truth' yet seem to be equally unprovable and contrary to each other to some degree, and the only sensible course of action seemed to be that of healthy disbelief. I see no internal contradiction with this whilst simultaneously considering myself to be a reasonably moral person.Although the beginning of this OP asks 'what is atheism' I would rather this thread (if promoted) not turn into a series of opposing dictionary definitions. Use formal definitions where relevant to your point by all means, but I am more interested in what people actually think about atheism than about definitions I could (and in some cases may already have done) look up myself.We seem to spend a great deal of time on this forum examining the theistic position and it's viability in one form or another.
It seems only fair that the atheistic position undergo the same sort of challenge and scrutiny.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

If you'll excuse me quoting myself from elsewhere:Atheism as a positive beliefI self-identify as an Atheist.But I don't like the word. Naturalist or Materialist would be better, but they've long since been claimed by other ideas. So Atheist it is.Why don't I like the word? Because it is defined by negation - OMG? You, like, don't believe in god?. Yeah, I don't believe in god, I don't believe in fairies either, or unicorns, or spirits or ghosts or some mystical energy that, like, binds us together dude but that's not why I'm an Atheist. It's the other way round, I don't believe in those things because I'm an Atheist.I'm Atheist because a world that is driven not by will, but by the quiet machinations of mindless material things driven not by purpose or intent but by the simple and repeated application of rules (in other words a natural world or a material world) not only appears to be what actually is out there in terms of what our senses and sciences can reveal to us but is a world more intellectually fulfilling and aesthetically pleasing.There is, of course, much we don't understand and quite possibly will never understand - there is no real reason to suppose that the world is such that it can be understood by human minds, yet alone will be - but a naturalist view at least presents us with a world that is accessible. I believe consciousness is a product of the human brain; no brain = no consciousness. How it works I have no idea but it allows me to be very sure of certain things: you are conscious too, for example. It means we can, in principle at least, take a good shot at understanding why we are conscious, and whether our pets are conscious too; it means that we know already about brains and minds actually makes sense.In our naturalistic world, we choose our own path; make decisions about what is meaningful or desirable for ourselves, and use the information we can gather about the world to make the best decisions we can knowing full well that this is it; our one shot at life and that the only criteria we can meaningful judge it on are the ones we choose for ourselves.I choose Atheism not because I reject ideas of god, and the supernatural, but because I embrace the notion of a material world - one we can touch and feel and test.

I don't know what there is to examine. Atheists have no defining creed, no tradition of core literature or scripture, no churches, no catechism, no shared ethos - nothing that ties us together beyond our rejection of the statement "Gods exist."Beyond that you're looking at what self-described atheists tend to do, or believe, or what have you, but it's not going to be possible to talk about the characteristics of atheism as a coherent whole, because, aside from the position on gods (which, even for that, atheists may not agree on precisely how that position is stated), there really aren't any. There's nothing that I believe that I think should be insulated from scrutiny, but it's important to remember that most of what you've listed in your post actually has nothing to do with atheism per se; it's mostly just independent philosophical positions that are associated, to a greater or lesser degree, with people who are atheists.

Part of the reason for proposing this topic was to help me clarify my own thinking.You have articulated very well a position that I generally support but that I had not coherently put together in my own mind. So thankyou for that.However it does raise some further questions Is it just happy coincidence that the evidence is in favour of the sort of universe you describe as aesthetically pleasing or is this part of the appeal?
Is it possible that your view of what is aesthetically pleasing influences your interpretation of the evidence at hand?To play devils advocate (in the absence of any anti atheist postings as yet)- Is it possible that the desire for a Godless natural material universe leads us to conclude that this is one?I think that would definitely be the religious fundamentalist position.
How are they wrong?

In my honest opinion, its much more than that. When I confronted my own atheism with honesty I came to realize that I was vaunting myself against God, whether God was a concept, or whether God were my Father who watches over me. Why though? Why had I made myself like Nimrod? Nimrod knew God, and despised Him anyway. He blamed God for the Flood and vowed to avenge mankind by building a tower that would reach heaven. I didn't know Him, but I formed an opinion in my psyche of distrust. What was going on in my heart that I would ever feel compelled to prove that something didn't exist? What difference did it make to me? Was I trying to prove that to others, or was I really trying to prove that to myself? And though I esteemed pragmatism, I found my treasured disbelief compelled almost entirely by an irrational loathing of something that I alleged didn't exist. I think an honest analysis of the common atheist would reveal that they view themselves as being among the upper crust of any given society. In stark contrast, they view a theist as somewhat of a scathing lunatic, bent on world domination through proselytizing. Why such diametric opposites? You may have heard a theist say, "I can't be an atheist because it requires more faith than I have." What exactly do they mean by it. Well, lets examine that momentarily to see if it even makes sense.To be an atheist is to explicitly claim that there is no God(s). This is an absolute statement, meaning that by claiming it, they are affirming its veracity. Many atheists have no doubt realized the implications for making such a definitive claim. In lieu of this, it has become increasingly difficult in distinguishing an agnostic from an atheist.What I mean to say, is, their new interpretation allows them to still refer to themselves as atheists, because they now call themselves, weak atheists. Basically this is an invented term that is no different from agnosticism, except that, they allow themselves to retain the coveted title, atheist.Here is where the rubber meets the road: To claim that there is no God, without reservation, leaves the claimant with the burden of proof to shoulder, not the theist. For the atheist to purport definitively that there is no God would mean that he has all-knowledge. If he hasn't omnipotence, he or she is speaking from a faith and belief position, no matter how much they recoil from the thought.If, however, he has all-knowledge, he himself would be God; and so he would actually nullify his own argument. For instance, if we were to categorically state that there are no monkeys living in Peru, what would that take to prove? It would mean that we would have to traverse the entire Peruvian landscape. We would have to trek through the densest jungles, go through every residence, every business, every church, every school, and even every sewer. Every space within the boundaries of Peru would have to be sought out completely. Consequently, to prove this false, all that is required is to find just one monkey. If even one monkey is found then the entire case against such is effectively dismantled.If he cannot complete the task, simply because he cannot exist in all spaces simultaneously, this would also act to completely discredit him. He then must concede that his statement is an assertion based on little more than guesswork. The same rule applies when speaking about God. Would it not then, be much more prudent to simply state, “With the limited knowledge I have at the present time, I cannot answer whether or not there is a God.” Must an atheist vaunt himself against that which he claims he doesn't believe in, in the first place?If he were to state this he would then be an agnostic. Agnostics are merely soft-atheists, or soft theists. But at the least they are familiar with the fundamental understanding that they cannot prove, nor disprove, the existence or non-existence of God. I don't think its intentional, but I certainly believe it to be true. An atheist cannot be pinned down to any true moral position, where as a theistic position is easily identifiable because its parameters have been officially established. Its easy to sit on a pedestal and cast judgment on the theist for failing to conform to the precepts or tenets of their faith. On that pedestal is very safe because they have opted for relativism-- that is, their morals are relative to what ever beliefs about they are prepared to identify with.

---

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

Fair enough. I wouldn't strongly dispute any of that except to say that what I am interested in examining is the actual reality of atheism as opposed to the theoretical definition.Whilst it may be true that the only thing ALL atheists share is - by definition.In practise I would suggest that virtually all atheists share the same sort of rationale for this rejection of gods. Namely an evidence based, pro scientific thinking attitude to 'truth'/reality and equally cynical attitude to faith.Thus in practise I think it would be true to say that atheists would be sceptical about the supernatural and paranormal despite these things not necessarily relating directly to gods or atheism by definition.I think in practise athiesm does entail more than just a rejection of Gods in all but a small minority of cases.

The "definitively" isn't there very often, at least in the internet community I run with. It's just that evidence doesn't support claims of gods.

It's no surprise to see so many myths about atheism in your post; atheists are a very maligned group. Anybody who has "secret knowledge" - that is, they know (or think they know) something that most people don't - is going to consider themselves part of an "elite". It's true in every field, even religion. Why does that surprise you?Or is this just more of a pattern you've established where the same behaviors for which you give a pass to the religious are used to impeach atheists? It never has been easy, because it always comes down to drawing a nonsense distinction between "not believing that something exists" and "believing that something doesn't exist." It's the same thing said two different ways; atheism and agnosticism are the same position with two different names. Well, that's absolute nonsense. The burden of proof is always on he who makes the positive claim of existence, not he who points out that no evidence for the positive claim has been provided.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The lack of evidence (for instance) for a teapot in orbit of Alpha Centuri is good reason to conclude that there is no such teapot. But God is not a monkey. And as you've said, the only thing that would be everywhere at once, eternally, would be God.Thus it's sufficient to find only one place where there is no God to prove that there's no God, anywhere. As you've defined him, he can't both exist and not be somewhere.Well, there's no God right here where I am, and I've never been to a place where there is a God, so that's a considerable weight of evidence that there is no God, anywhere - not as you've defined him.That's the position of a lot of atheists, like me - we don't know that all possible conceptions of God have been falsified, but it's certainly safe to say that the popular concepts of God have been. Concepts like "God is an all-powerful creator and father-figure" or "God is an energy force that grants wishes". Gods like "God is a merry prankster whose every action is taken in such a way to conceal his existence" disprove themselves by Occam's Razor.All the popular conceptions of God either run contrary to physical fact or run contrary to internal consistency. That is why the "stronger-than-weak" atheist (a "6" on the "Dawkins scale", if you will, which is just about as strong as atheists ever go in practice) asserts that "there is no God." Because that's not how people arrive at conclusions. If absolute certainty is necessary for you to arrive at conclusions, then yes, that's the best that you can say.But nobody lives like that. We arrive at conclusions based on relatively uncertain information all the time - it would be paralyzing to operate in any other way. The realities of biology introduce doubt into all data - you could be hallucinating, or dreaming, or misremembering.But on the same basis that I conclude (though I can't be sure) that Scarlett Johansson is not present in my kitchen, I conclude that God is not present in my universe. With the same certainty. Which God? The common tactic of theists is to leave this term purposefully undefined, so that when the atheist does disprove a certain God, the goalposts are moved.Honestly if the best theists can muster to defend their beliefs are disingenuousness, that doesn't speak well for the veracity of their beliefs. Except that this isn't true. Theists are no less likely to engage in moral backbending to excuse specific situations than anybody else. There's a million such examples. "God says 'thou shall not murder', but execution and war don't count."In practice, morality for theists isn't any more absolute, or less nuanced, than morality for atheists. Combined with the propensity of religion to rationalize and promote otherwise-needless immoral acts (i.e. the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the abuses of the Soviet Union), and we see why atheists, as a whole, tend to be slightly better-behaved than theists.

I wouldn't say "all." For instance, people who believe in The Force are nominally atheist, but clearly not motivated by scientific rationalism or evidence-based inquiry. Arguably, Buddhism is a completely atheistic religion. And, indeed, we're all born atheists; but clearly a 2-year old infant is not motivated by evidence-based inquiry via the scientific method.Atheism is a very broad category.

Unsurprisingly I disagree.Firstly I really don't think my atheism is a as a result of an unwitting loathing of God.
It really is more due to the bewildering irrationality of the theistic position. In addition I have no compulsion to disprove Gods existence. In fact I would suggest it is undisprovable (bad English but you get the drift) and a pointless waste of time trying to disprove god.As regards to faith and atheism - I DO think that my atheism is partly about a distrust of faith per se. If asked to cite on a scale of 1 - 10 my view of gods likely existence where 1 = absolute certainty and faith in his existence and 10 = absolute certainty and faith in his non-existence then I would rate myself at about 9.somethingDoes that make me an agnostic or 'weak atheist'? Perhaps by literal definition in some way but from my heart I would say not. I would say that it makes me an atheist who disbelieves in absolute certainty of the sort only available through faith. Including the faith that god does not exist. There is not enough evidence to justify that conclusion and cannot ever be. To be a 10 is exactly the sort of act of faith I strongly disbelieve in.So your argument agaist atheism as an absolute certainty that god does not exist is something of a straw man in my view. Without taking ths whole thread down the morality path - I think I can be pinned down to a moral position and to stick to it consistently. For example the death penalty as punishment for crime in my view is a morally indefensible position. The fact I don't need to believe that this is handed down from god makes it no less passionately felt. In fact I believe the position is enhanced by the need to rationally justify it rather than just denounce it as wrong and ungodly for ill defined theistic reasons of what god does or does not want us to do.In short I don't think any of your arguments against atheism apply to me personally and I am not convinced they apply to many other atheists either.

With Buddhists and champions of 'The Force' you do indeed have a point.Are we all born with a bisbelief in God? Surely we are born with neither belief or disbelief in anythig much at all. To call my 10 month old son an atheist seems to be stretching even all encompassing theoretical definitions to the extreme.Alas we are unlikely to encounter any Buddhists or Force believers here at EvC so I'll stick to my guns and sweeping generalisations about atheists on the basis that the people likely to enter this discussion broadly meet them.However I would love to be proved wrong by any non-rational/naturalist/materialist atheists in the house???

Why can't atheists be pinned down on their moral position?How can theists be pinned down on their moral position? The Theists moral positions are every bit as relative as the atheists. For example, the Theists morality depends on the particular code set he chooses and on the era, mores and culture he lives within.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What if we thought of "belief" in terms of ownership?Nobody is born owning a house. Some people buy a house and some don't. Some are "housists" and some are "ahousists".Nobody is born owning a belief in gods. Some people buy into a belief and some don't.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Exactly the point I was making to CrashFrog.
We are born neither atheists or theists or anything in between.
To stretch your anology to breaking point - When we are born we don't even know what a house is nevermind whether or not we want to buy one.