Yin Yong a problem?

[jpariury]

i wasn't saying atheists are 'a-religious' i was saying atheists have a belief-system

Atheists can have any number of belief systems, that doesn't change that atheism is neither a religion nor a belief system unto itself, but a singular belief (or lack thereof). Atheism requires no adherence to any series of precepts, nor even any particular set of tests or doctrines by which one can arrive at it. A person who is atheist out of spite or rebellion (i.e. - emo teens ) is distinctly different from someone whose faith dictates that the existence of a deity is some manner of falsehood (i.e. - some sects of Buddhism, some forms of Wicca), both of which are distinctly different from those who believe in a wholly natural world (see: naturalists) yet all three are atheists. Trying to lump them all in as subscribing to the same belief-system is foolhardy at best.

 

[Mobius]

there are certainly different types of atheism, some of which you enumerated, however, the self-description "atheist" is still a positive identification: a decision to define oneself (or a facet of oneself) as believing in something, namely the none-existence of divinity. this affirmation spawns any number of conclusions, actions, outcomes, et al., just as the affirmation of theism develops a different series of outcomes. both are a personal decision about the world and affects how one lives. saying atheism is defined by a lack of belief doesn't make sense; it's not anarchy or indifference, it's existential (in that it's a way to define existence). a person who is a-feline creates their world based on the idea that felines don't exist and this core decision "systemizes" how they interpret perception. there may be umpteen different kinds of atheism, but the core is still a belief which results in a system of existence just as theism is a belief which results in a system. saying atheism isn't a belief-system is like saying the scientific method isn't a belief-system or logic isn't a belief-system or mathematics isn't a belief-system; it's a belief which creates a system

and whoa nelly has this run off the rails. 'course, it's pertinent to the OP in that symbol "x" will only have meaning if people ascribe meaning to it, as such the Yin Yang will only have a religious meaning if people decide it's religious. i still say just do it, and let anyone with a problem be their own look-out

 

[wolfan]

Just to clarify, jp, it sounds like you might be describing someone who is an agnostic?

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

P.S. I'm not saying any of you are right or wrong, just figured I'd make the terms more clear.

 

[jpariury]

saying atheism is defined by a lack of belief doesn't make sense

Sure it does. Theism is "belief in a deity". A-theism is "not-theism". It can be defined by active disbelief or by a failure to have created or even considered such a belief.

Atheism is not necessarily relegated as in initial belief from which an entire system is derived. Sure, it can be, but it is equally a conclusion derived from some other belief set. And even if used as merely an initial premise, it is not the entire set of beliefs. Identifying oneself as an atheist does not necessitate any particular set of resultant beliefs, except as they pertain to that one belief. i.e. bad weather is not caused by a god, because the belief that no god exists negates that. It does not, however, require that one believe that bad weather is caused by global climate shifts, ogres, or group mindthink impacting the non-quantum world.

Similarly, not every belief is a beliefset unto itself. A belief that proper chili does not include beans is not a beliefset all on it's own, nor does it therefore require that we burn the infidels who say otherwise.

and whoa nelly has this run off the rails.

Well, that is why it was moved. Though, I think splitting it might have been a better course.

Just to clarify, jp, it sounds like you might be describing someone who is an agnostic?

Not really. Someone can be both agnostic and atheist (see the Bertrand Russell link in my sig line), but they can alternatively be an agnostic and a theist. There are also those that just aren't comfortable identifying themselves as either theist or atheist, but none of this is what I am talking referring to when describing atheism. It's something of an argument that has been going on between atheists and theists for a little over thirty years, but in general, I include both definitions when referring to atheism. (Paradoxically, I'd also suggest that it is possible for someone to be a theist in philosophy and an atheist in practice.)

 

[tieran]

The problem here is that JP has engaged in a philosophical debate without warning people that is he using specialized vocabulary, until just now.

 

[jpariury]

When someone trots out the "atheism is a religion" argument, what sort of warning would anyone use? Not asking to be snarky, I just really don't know that I'm springing any surprises on anyone when rebutting it.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Why do believers insist on trying to force atheism into their categories when it clearly is not? Atheists can't even agree with each other -- there are liberal atheists and conservative atheists and everything inbetween.

I also don't believe in Santa Claus, or astrology, or trickle-down economics. Do I belong to a "belief system" for everything I don't believe? And if so, doesn't every single person on earth belong to hundreds of belief systems?

When you start defining things that broadly, they cease to have meaning!

 

[wolfan]

Why do believers insist on trying to force atheism into their categories when it clearly is not?

Because it's hard for someone who is extremely religious or spiritual to imagine life without that piece. I as a "believer" have a hard time imagining what life would be like without certain religious aspects which are specific to my religion. Such as prayer or spiritual cleansing myself. I can see the difference, but as a religious person I can see how some people may look Atheism and say "Oh they believe that there is nothing. Belief == religion." And voilà! 2 + 2 = 22

I personally disagree with them, and I do not see Atheism as a religion. I think life should be a little bit more simple. Atheism to me is the lack of belief that there is anything beyond seeing or feeling. That's how it looks from my view point. I've asked a number of atheists "How do you explain how a seed 'knows' how to get out of it's casing and grow up when science can't find sentience in it?" and their answer usually is something to the effect of, "I can't but one day I will, when we figure it out." Religion usually requires a little more of a leap of faith then that.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Why do believers insist on trying to force atheism into their categories when it clearly is not?

Because it's hard for someone who is extremely religious or spiritual to imagine life without that piece. I as a "believer" have a hard time imagining what life would be like without certain religious aspects which are specific to my religion. Such as prayer or spiritual cleansing myself. I can see the difference, but as a religious person I can see how some people may look Atheism and say "Oh they believe that there is nothing. Belief == religion." And voilà! 2 + 2 = 22

I personally disagree with them, and I do not see Atheism as a religion. I think life should be a little bit more simple. Atheism to me is the lack of belief that there is anything beyond seeing or feeling. That's how it looks from my view point. I've asked a number of atheists "How do you explain how a seed 'knows' how to get out of it's casing and grow up when science can't find sentience in it?" and their answer usually is something to the effect of, "I can't but one day I will, when we figure it out." Religion usually requires a little more of a leap of faith then that.

Agreed, although I wouldn't limit it to "beyond seeing or feeling." I don't see or feel quantum mechanics but I still believe in it. It's more of a lack of belief of things which have no proof.

The difference between atheists and believers is that atheists see nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." The lack of evidence does not require us to accept things without proof in order to have an answer. Sometimes there just isn't an answer... yet.

 

[jpariury]

I've asked a number of atheists "How do you explain how a seed 'knows' how to get out of it's casing and grow up when science can't find sentience in it?" and their answer usually is something to the effect of, "I can't but one day I will, when we figure it out."

Let me start by saying I get your overall point. This is not me missing your point or ignoring it.

That said, there are probably a few issues with the example -
Seeds don't know anything (in the sense that you know you have to eat, or what your name is, for example). Their growth is governed by physical processes occurring on a microscopic scale. There is no apparent decision-making process involved in their growth, so the question itself is somewhat flawed in that regard (as if somehow a lack of knowledge would cause things to act differently).
A lot of this sort of discussion boils down to the big "Why?". The problem here is that people often equivocate on which "Why" they are discussing. There's the "what preceding event caused this to be", and then there's the more abstract "for what purpose did this occur". The first one requires study... historical, statistical, physical, etc. In theory (not Theory), it's within the scope of mankind's ability to understand more or less anything - it's just a function of having the technology and wherewithal to examine the evidence. In practical terms, I suspect that the human race will die off long before it can answer any of the Big Questions, such as "Was there a First Event, and if so, what caused the First Event to occur?" (Sidenote: yes, yes, Big Bang, blahblahblah. Scientists are still stymied at what caused it, though they've posited a number of hypotheses on the subject... short form - we still don't know) The second question (purpose) assumes something that is not necessarily in evidence: that existence requires it. That is, imo, probably the easiest leap of faith made by anyone, and yet is, as far as I can tell, impossible to reconcile.

I don't know that I have much more to add about how atheism is a stance on a single metaphysical topic, and nothing more. Clearly, atheists can have a wide variety of other beliefs. For example, Mike is welcome to his belief in quantum mechanics. Personally, I don't think I know or understand much, if any, of it, so I definitely can't claim a belief in it. I may not actually understand the things I think I do, and I definitely don't necessarily possess intricate knowledge of them, but I at least require that I think I understand them well enough before proclaiming any particular belief about them. (If that made any sense )

 

[evi1r0n]

At one point in time I was an aspiring youth pastor. Life without god turned out to be not so bad, as I am now (for lack of a better word) atheist. Not because I am against religion simply because I feel there is no compelling evidence in the existence of a deity. If I found solid, see it with my own eyes proof, I would be open to changing my mind. If you would have told me 10 years ago that I was going to not believe in god, I would have had a heart attack.

Sorry random thoughts. I just don't like being lumped into a "religion" about as much as believers don't like to call what their religion "mythology."

 

[wolfan]

I've asked a number of atheists "How do you explain how a seed 'knows' how to get out of it's casing and grow up when science can't find sentience in it?" and their answer usually is something to the effect of, "I can't but one day I will, when we figure it out."

Let me start by saying I get your overall point. This is not me missing your point or ignoring it.

That said, there are probably a few issues with the example -
Seeds don't know anything (in the sense that you know you have to eat, or what your name is, for example). Their growth is governed by physical processes occurring on a microscopic scale. There is no apparent decision-making process involved in their growth, so the question itself is somewhat flawed in that regard (as if somehow a lack of knowledge would cause things to act differently).

Noted, guess I came up with that one because I'm a nature based religion so they "know" things to me. :funny: