Dang. I was in the middle of typing a response and it was closed. LOL Anyway ...

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moreover, there are many nuances of the term
> "atheism" that can suggest a range of attitudes on
> philosophical issues and in social science
> contexts.

No. An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god. Period. Everything after that is an individual's own opinion about morality, philosophy and well, basically everything.

You're making it more complicated by adding things to it.

I might not believe in the death penalty and I also just happen to be an atheist. John Doe may support the death penalty and he also just happens to be an atheist. You don't need to muddy up the definition of 'atheist' by adding to what atheists basically believe morally.

So silly, these people are tying themselves into knots trying to turn disbelief into mysticism. Just take any of these specious arguments and substitute the word "UFOs" or "leprechauns" instead of "God" to demonstrate the absurdity of their position.

These attempts to turn atheism into more than it is reminds me of trying to get a bill through congress. You will never get enough votes on your new bill for equality or something unless every single congressman gets to tack on his pet project to the bill--like a missile defense system for his home town in the midwest or a new highway that happens to improve his property values.

That's a great analogy!

To the 'lack of belief' atheists:

Rather than repeating ad nauseam that atheism is never more than a lack of belief, period, try understanding the history of the term. A nice, thoughtful atheist even wrote a book about it. Here's a review:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origin_of_the_species_by_nick_spencer_reviewed.single.html#comments

Snippet:

Aheists: The Origin of the Species seems to have been born out of frustration with these and other confusions perpetuated by the so-called “New Atheists” and their allies, who can’t be bothered to familiarize themselves with the traditions they traduce. Several thoughtful writers have already laid bare the slapdash know-nothingism of today’s mod-ish atheism, but Spencer’s not beating a dead horse—he’s beating a live one, in the hope that Nietzsche might rush to embrace it.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rather than repeating ad nauseam that atheism is
> never more than a lack of belief

We repeat it because people frustratingly won't quit trying to assign all sorts of extra nuances to our personalities, simply because we don't believe in God.

They won't see us as individuals. We're trying to get away from the box of organized religion, not try to be lumped into a whole new 'religious' category.

They decide how we must feel morally, how we feel about religion, or even about politics. I can't tell you how many times I've had to deal with, "Well you're an atheist, so you must believe this about such-and-such a topic." Argh! Why must I? They're very often wrong.

It's frustrating to the point of nausea. We're only trying to point out that the only thing we share in common is the lack of a belief in God. Everything after that is an individual thing.

If people would only understand that much, then we'd quit repeating ourselves.

Try asking, "How does being an atheist affect your thoughts about such-and-such a topic, or does it?" You'd get many different answers.

The history of a thing doesn't always reflect where it has evolved over time. Today's Christianity certainly bears no resemblance to what it was when it first began.

Careful, or people might begin affixing a persecution complex as well.

Read the article, it's a quickie trust me, and maybe begin understanding other atheists and their frustration with many of their fellow atheists, the 'atheism is nothing more than lack of belief' kind.

The article doesn't advance anything other than the author's own silly assertion that atheists must be defined by what they aren't, as opposed to being defined by the absence of it.

An empty bottle expresses nothing on the type of liquids that it can carry. It is not defined by the pantheon of anything. It is empty.

Atheists are empty of theistic belief. Adding knowledge of various religions changes none of that. The bottle remains empty.

Your preference for an empty atheism is like Krauss' preference for the nothing before it became something: both ignore that something the was there before.

I like how the article concludes:

"What’s most galling about evangelical atheists is their epistemic arrogance—and their triumphalist tone: If religious belief is like belief in the Easter Bunny, as they like to say, shouldn’t they be less proud of themselves for seeing through it? Gray put the matter starkly:

"Driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all of human knowledge, [religious believers] have had to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast, secular believers—held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time—are in the grip of unexamined dogmas."

Oh, that is just baloney. I was listening to (the dreaded) Sam Harris the other day and he made a point I'd never considered before. He was talking about how rational believers today do not believe that Adam and Eve or the Flood or the Tower of Babel really happened. However, it's undeniable, that at one time, those things were considered to be fact. But real fact, scientific fact, has pushed those things out of the realm of fact and into the real of something else, symbolism or maybe, meaningful myth. Yet believers, who accept the downgrading of what were previously their facts into the realm of symbolism, never credit the reason their facts were changed. Science rebutted them and won the day. Because these people accept the change without giving credit to the system that made the change, they're kind of sneaky (Mr Harris didn't use this work, I did). They'll continue to criticize about some kind of "religion of science" or "modern mass delusion of science," while quietly altering their own truths based on the same science.

It's illuminating gems like that which make otherwise treadmill-argumentative threads worthwhile. While many posters celebrate their liberation from the circular answers of Mormonism, how many are willing to question their own simple substitutions?

"In reality … modern atheism was primarily a political and social cause, its development in Europe having rather more to do with the (ab)use of theologically legitimized political authority than it does with developments in science or philosophy."

Hence its similar flourishing on "Recovery from Mormonism." People insist on the far-sighted generality of no-belief-in-god(s) precisely because this suits their political & social agendas without having to engage philosophically with the terms they use.

"People insist on the far-sighted generality of no belief in god(s) precisely because this suits their political and social agendas without having to engage philosophically with the terms they use." What?! The first atheist I ever met was my father, who also was a career-military Republican. Are those the atheistic political and social agenda? Yes, he opposed theistically controlled politics, because theism drives the politics of ignorance, bigotry, and tribalism--but he didn't oppose it because he, and other atheists, have some consistent and identifiable political and social agenda. Greyfort's death-penalty example is a good one.

"You don't need to muddy up the definition of 'atheist' by adding to what atheists basically believe morally."

True. On the other hand, one should also be aware that there is more than one definition of "atheist."

If the word is defined broadly as "Someone who does not believe that God exists," someone who also does not believe that God does not exist would be included within the scope of the definition. That is obviously not the case if the word is defined narrowly as "Someone who believes that God does not exist." I find the narrower definition more useful because it is less ambiguous.

The average Xtian/Muslim/Jew believes in a being who interests him/her/its self in the goings-on of individual humans and can somehow be cajoled into granting favors to the right-thinking/believing/behaving believer. This atheist does not believe in any such entity. My beliefs and values regarding a myriad of issues do not flow from my disbelief in any sort of personal sky daddy.

One-does-not-need-to-over-think-atheism-ly yrs,

S

"My beliefs and values regarding a myriad of issues do not flow from my disbelief in any sort of personal sky daddy."

Ab-so-lute-ly. That is exactly how I feel.

I think that's why most people say "agnostic" when they have no belief, simply to avoid causing trouble.



It is basically a culturally polite way of saying "I don't believe in your religion but I think it is possible it's true."



Whereas atheism implies the person actively rejects your religion, and thinks you are stupid for believing in it.

Agnosticism originally meant the position that it is not possible to know whether God exists. Under that definition, one might be (1) an agnostic atheist, (2) an agnostic theist, or (3) one might simply not have a firm belief either way. The person you describe would fall into group 3.

All you are doing here is announcing I am wrong. You need to address my points! Here, I will make it simple:

(1) "Atheism," i.e. the lack of belief in god, is as mentally and conceptually complicated as "theism," since it is by definition the lack of belief in theism. Without knowing what "theism" means, you do not know what your lack of belief is about. RIGHT?

(2) To be an atheist, therefore, you must have some idea of what theism means, which means you must have a substantive view as what it is you do not believe. That means you must have a mental state that correlates with your atheism, just as the theist does about his theism.

(3) Moreover, how an atheist expresses such belief, or (excuse me) lack of belief (how he or she cashes out the "theism" that is not believed), has implications for his entire worldview, including his views of morality, society, law, the meaning of life, etc. (Does atheism, for example, preclude natural law, platonic views of mathematics, mind, consciousness, mental causation, free will, moral responsibility, souls, life after death?)

(4) If the above is correct, atheism cannot be encompassed by a simple characterization of a lack of belief in "theism," because until such lack of belief is cashed out, we really have no idea what the atheist is talking about. What does his view mean? What are the implications of such a view? Even the statement of lack of belief in "any gods" is not helpful. Do you mean personal gods? How about deistic gods? How about a life force?

(5) Thus, when someone raises the idea of atheism (i.e. his or her lack of belief in theism), there is much left to clarify and to discuss. AND, therefore, there can be much disagreement among atheist themselves as to what it means to be an atheist.

(6) At least in principle, factions of atheists might development based upon their views about what "atheism" means, and what it implies, just as factions of theists develop as to what "theism" means.

(7) Factions of atheists, again in principle, might well result in dogmatic beliefs that are similar to religious convictions, which might well result in organized societies of atheists. Such societies might not be expressly "religious," but might be reflected in political or social groups.

The sought after simplicity is gone from the moment the lack of belief is announced.

I am not making it complicated. IT IS COMPLICATED! HUMAN BEINGS ARE COMPLICATED. BELIEF AND LACK OF BELIEF IS COMPLICATED. MINDS ARE COMPLICATED. IDEAS ARE COMPLICATED, ETC. ETC.

You aparently want to keep it simple because somehow you think this gives atheism some advantage over theism. The advantage of atheism, if there is one, is based upon evidence, or lack of evidence, not on a bogus logical point about lack of belief.

If you, or others, still do not get this, I'm sorry. But if you just insist upon being dogmatic in your denial, consider your Mormon roots, and where that attitude got you.

"(6) At least in principle, factions of atheists might development [sic] based upon their views about what 'atheism' means, and what it implies, just as factions of theists develop as to what 'theism' means."

Different groups of theists certainly might have different notions of what "atheism" means as well.

You are making it overly complicated, plain and simple, and really I think you like to see your words in print, so you write a lot of them.

1) define theism: Per Google: "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures."

Therefore, simply, atheism is not the belief in the existing of a god or gods... This is what everyone keeps telling you and you keep trying to complicate.

2) See one for what I think theism means. It doesn't go any further than that.

3) Atheism doesn't "express" a "belief" it is by definition the lack of a belief, your attempts at being cute, simply show your disdain for the topic and your refusal to actually discuss it correctly. As for the implications, they are different for everyone. The fact that I'm an atheist does not mean that I ascribe to any one philosophy, creed or moral system. Saying "I am an atheist" simply and only means that I do not believe in god.

4) Your "above" is not correct... and your statement "atheism cannot be encompassed by a simple characterization of a lack of belief in 'theism'" that's what it is by definition.

5) No, there's not. Some atheist may disagree, but that doesn't mean that they speak for all atheists. The one and only thing that you can say for all atheists is that they do not believe in god. That's it. If there's an atheist who stands up and says "we all think this way" You'll quickly find that not to be true.

6) There may be groups who are like minded who also happen to be atheists, but that doesn't mean that speak for all atheists. You're trying to say that because my Mom has a knitting group and they all happen to be republican, they may even call themselves "The knitting Republicans!", that and sometimes discuss politics that all knitters are republican or that there is a knitting republican agenda and the fact that they disagree with the "Conservative Quilters" is an interesting and worthwhile topic. It's simply not true. They may be atheists, but they do not represent an "Atheist dogma" or religion like entity, they certainly don't speak for all atheists and probably not for the majority of them. What will it take to get this simple thing in your head.

7) Who cares? Again, a group of republican's may join together to form a militant knitters guild... Do they speak for all republicans? They may even build political power, but that still doesn't mean that they speak for all republicans.

It's not that complicated. Really. You're the one who's not getting it. You're the one who's insisting on assigning a dogma beyond what's there.

1) I don't have a lack of belief in theism. I have a lack of a belief in any gods.

2) I do not believe in any gods.

3) You're still focusing on 'isms, where I'm simply focusing on the definition of a word. I'm sure that being an atheist does affect my views, but I still have most of the same values that I had as a religious person. I had them before I was religious, during and still. There are values I hold dear which remain the same, whether I am religious, or not.

4) Again, we seem to be trying to define two different things. I'm focusing only on the word "atheist," whereas you're focusing on an ism. I don't feel any sense of ism when it comes to my lack of belief in a god. I just don't believe in him/she/it. I'm not an activist. I don't belong to any clubs. I just don't believe in a god and that's all, which is perhaps why I get so upset when people try to assign more to it than that when it comes to me personally.

5) A lack of belief in theism? No, just a lack of belief in any gods, supreme creators, a source, or whatever people name it. I'm pretty sure that theism exists.

6) Because there's no definitive Atheist Bible (although I did find a book called that on Amazon, LOL), it is always a matter of personal interpretation. That's why I stick with the simple definition of the word atheist and let individual atheists take it from there as to what it means for them personally. I guess what I mean is that there is no requirement for being an atheist. "If you are an atheist, you must believe this ..." There's simply no handbook, no book of instructions. The only requirement is that you don't believe in a deity and that's the only thing that I keep trying to get across. I have no interest whatsoever in pursuing 'atheism.' I just don't believe in God, that's all. If evidence shows otherwise, then that could change, but I don't expect any such evidence to show up. But ya never know.

7) "Factions of," being the operative words here. Again, that's where we're differing. I'm talking about a simple definition of a word and you seem to be talking about almost more of a movement, which I have no interest in being a part of. I don't pursue anything to do with atheism. I just am one.

To you, it's complicated. To me, it's simple. I guess on that score, we're not going to agree, which is fine too.

I also don't care what theists believe. I've no interest in religion at all any more. I don't care if one has an advantage over the other. I can actually see advantages and disadvantages of both.

I like hanging out with ex-Mos because we all have that in common. We understand where each other has been.

Greyfort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1) I don't have a lack of belief in theism. I
> have a lack of a belief in any gods.

COMMENT: This doesn't change anything. To be an atheist, you have to know what you don't believe in. So, when you say "any gods" you must have some idea of what "gods" means as the foundation of your lack of belief.
>
> 2) I do not believe in any gods.

COMMENT: But, as stated, what does "any gods" mean? What is your idea of "god" that underlies your disbelief? You cannot have a psychological lack of belief with substance as to what it is you do not believe it.
>
> 3) You're still focusing on 'isms, where I'm
> simply focusing on the definition of a word. I'm
> sure that being an atheist does affect my views,
> but I still have most of the same values that I
> had as a religious person. I had them before I
> was religious, during and still. There are values
> I hold dear which remain the same, whether I am
> religious, or not.

COMMENT: No, I am not focusing on "isms." I am focusing on "beliefs" and "lack of beliefs." The fact that you "still have most of the same values" reflects on what you intend by YOUR atheism, and what you do not intend. Other atheists might have different values depending upon how they cash in their "atheism." That is the point! In some sense of the word "atheism" as you subscribe to it, your pre-atheistic values are preserved; with others not so. This might very well be because you do not look at atheism the same way; i.e. his "lack of belief in god" might be profoundly different from your "lack of belief in god." If so, there must be something more to atheism than a simple "lack of belief in god."

> 4) Again, we seem to be trying to define two
> different things. I'm focusing only on the word
> "atheist," whereas you're focusing on an ism. I
> don't feel any sense of ism when it comes to my
> lack of belief in a god. I just don't believe in
> him/she/it. I'm not an activist. I don't belong
> to any clubs. I just don't believe in a god and
> that's all, which is perhaps why I get so upset
> when people try to assign more to it than that
> when it comes to me personally.

COMMENT: No. I am focusing on your attempt to define atheism as simply "the lack of belief in god" and your resistance to the view that atheism must be more than that; i.e. a substantive belief itself; a belief that god does not exist.
>
> 5) A lack of belief in theism? No, just a lack
> of belief in any gods, supreme creators, a source,
> or whatever people name it. I'm pretty sure that
> theism exists.

COMMENT: Again, changing "theism" to "gods" doesn't help you here, for reasons stated above.

> 6) Because there's no definitive Atheist Bible
> (although I did find a book called that on Amazon,
> LOL), it is always a matter of personal
> interpretation. That's why I stick with the
> simple definition of the word atheist and let
> individual atheists take it from there as to what
> it means for them personally.

COMMENT: It is O.K. by me if you want to stick with a simple definition for purposes of your own announcements, but again, you can't say as a matter of conceptual fact, or as a matter of your mental state, that "atheism" just is, and only is, the lack of belief in god. That is what doesn't work.

> I guess what I mean
> is that there is no requirement for being an
> atheist. "If you are an atheist, you must believe
> this ..." There's simply no handbook, no book of
> instructions. The only requirement is that you
> don't believe in a deity and that's the only thing
> that I keep trying to get across. I have no
> interest whatsoever in pursuing 'atheism.' I just
> don't believe in God, that's all. If evidence
> shows otherwise, then that could change, but I
> don't expect any such evidence to show up. But ya
> never know.

COMMENT: Again, that's fine. But, whether we are talking about "deity" or "god," Atheism cannot be just a lack of belief; i.e. a vacuum of belief, or the absence of belief, as is so often claimed on this Board (and elsewhere).
>
> 7) "Factions of," being the operative words here.
> Again, that's where we're differing. I'm talking
> about a simple definition of a word and you seem
> to be talking about almost more of a movement,
> which I have no interest in being a part of. I
> don't pursue anything to do with atheism. I just
> am one.

COMMENT: I am only saying that as a substantive belief, with a variety of nuances, atheism lends itself to such things, recalling the original post on this subject. What you do, or don't do, is beside the point.
>
> To you, it's complicated. To me, it's simple. I
> guess on that score, we're not going to agree,
> which is fine too.

COMMENT: No. It is complicated, period! You cannot, absolutely cannot, claim that your atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in God. It must be a substantive position based upon some understanding or conception of what it is you do not believe. Your simplicity suggests only that you decline to address the particulars of your atheistic view.
>
> I also don't care what theists believe. I've no
> interest in religion at all any more. I don't
> care if one has an advantage over the other. I
> can actually see advantages and disadvantages of
> both.

COMMENT: I share you position here. Except, I am a bit preoccupied with the advantages and disadvantages of each.
>
> I like hanging out with ex-Mos because we all have
> that in common. We understand where each other
> has been.

COMMENT: AGREED. And let me add that I follow and enjoy your posts, Greyfort, and have learned from them. They are generally intelligent and thoughtful, and much appeciated.

> COMMENT: This doesn't change anything. To be an
> atheist, you have to know what you don't believe
> in. So, when you say "any gods" you must have
> some idea of what "gods" means as the foundation
> of your lack of belief.

Well, no. This is one problem I have with the defnition of "atheism" as a lack of belief (in the existence of God or gods). Under such a definition, infants, who surely do not know what "gods" are, would be atheists. And there are certainly those who adamantly insist that every infant is indeed an atheist.

Do you believe in Santa?

If not, please define "Santa", what do you mean by "Santa" exactly. After all "You cannot have a psychological lack of belief with substance as to what it is you do not believe it."

You must specify if it's North American Santa, or another "St. Nick" type, because those are completely different, maybe you really do believe in Santa and just don't know it. After all it could be just a belief that Santa doesn't exist, oh I know that's not what you think, but that's how many see it.

You can't simply say you don't believe in Santa without some other psychological/sociological ramifications. Certainly, your lack of belief in Santa speaks to your morals and values.

According to one author who has an impressive list of PhD attached to his name, everyone who doesn't believe in Santa belongs to this certain group and way of thinking, anyone who says that they don't believe in Santa and also doesn't agree with this author must be wrong and/or see him as an enemy, because obviously this author has an impressive credential set, therefore he must be right and speak for all non-Santa believers the same way and his is the only way I'll agree to seeing it.

There are several groups of people who don't believe in Santa who disagree with an unrelated topic. Isn't that fascinating that people who don't believe in Santa can group and disagree? Some are militant Non-Santa believers, there's a group of "new Santa non-believers" etc, that says something about all non-Santa believers, what I'm not sure, but it says something.

Do you see how your lack of belief in Santa is immensely more complicated than you thought?

And don't get me started on how belief in Santa or lacking a belief in Santa affects Christmas traditional behaviors.

...

Do you see how silly that is? Please tell me you see how silly that is. Lacking a belief in Santa doesn't require further definitions of what "Santa" is. It doesn't speak to any further implications other than the fact that the person doesn't believe in Santa. It's all pure silliness to go any further than that.

Exactly. The line of "reasoning" of defining atheism off of theism (to where knowlege of theism is required) is ludicrous and unnecessary. Imagine the problem these people would have with:

Blind
Illiteracy
Bald
Smooth
Dark
Dry
Impermeable
Unnecessary
etc...

You'll find a host of definitions that imply a "without", but to them they somehow want to shoehorn in "with and without" into the definition of atheism! Insanity at its finest.

That was most excellent.

Will someone please stick a fork in my eye?

I do not believe that a supernatural unknown, unseen, self-aware being or force created the Universe.

I have never made the statement, "There is no god." I only state that I see no current credible evidence to cause me to belief that such a being exists.

I really can't add more than that. At this point people are wanting forks driven into their eyes, so I think I'm done. LOL

Theists seem to think their god is special and deserves more consideration than infinite variety of things people don't believe in.

Not so. I put gods, Santa, Easter Bunny, etc. all together as things for which there is NO substantial proof. I don't have to dwell on whether or why I don't believe. I only have to say "if YOU say it's true, then YOU prove it".

Seems there's a lot of flack about what "Atheist" means. All it is really, is a refusal to take on faith that some deity exists. I personally don't state that God doesn't exist, but that there's no convincing evidence that he does. I'm sure enough about my current conclusions that I proceed as if there is no God.

What we really ought to be discussing is the definition of "faith." That word has been deliberately blurred and made confusing. My definition of faith; "Pretending to know things that you don't know."

The thing I find so galling is when I'm told, "You don't even know what you believe. I'll tell you what you believe." What?

I get that from Mormons. "You only think you don't believe in the Church, but your spirit knows the truth."

I hate that. That's probably why I'm constantly trying to defend what it is that I believe and what I don't believe, yes maybe even to the point of ad nauseam. But it's one of my pet peeves. It's freaking annoying.

I think I'll just take some of my own advice that I often give to others. You can explain your own opinion. After that, you're not responsible for how other people process it.

...is based on the premise that "You don't even know what you believe/think." It leads to metacognition, or thinking-about-thinking. But like any intellectual tool, people feel more comfortable using it on others' thinking rather than on their own.

The Taoist philosopher Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray)wrote, "Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9% of everything you think, and everything you do, is for your self--and there isn't one."

Ego is the great illusory box, and everyone is thinking within it.

"It leads to metacognition, or thinking-about-thinking. But like any intellectual tool, people feel more comfortable using it on others' thinking rather than on their own."

If that was your own self diagnosis then I finally agree with one thing you've said.

We get it, you really, really like that book review, you cut and pasted most of it. Please inform us, what makes our uniformed atheism so goddamn shallow and uninformed?