Ask an Atheist

[Eudaimonist]

Do you feel that for example humanism, which is atheism +, is a good solution to this problem?

Possibly. It's a step in the right direction, anyway.

There are also Objectivist groups, which specialize in philosophy, but tend not to encourage much exposure to philosophers other than Objectivists.

Aside from them, the best group that I've found is the Fellowship of Reason, which is several dozen people mainly situated in Atlanta, Georgia. This group holds adult education classes in philosophy that covers virtually all of Western philosophy, and even some Eastern philosophy. They are highly focused on fostering philosophical individuals for the purpose of enabling their personal flourishing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that atheists have more than their fair share of people who wrongly think that one's life has no purpose or meaning whatsoever, and that moral values are baseless (cf nihilism), but that designation "unfair share" is me being charitable, as many atheists do not care about developong a philosophical public image or ethos (one might hear "atheist are not a group, where's my beer" for example), whereas most religious people actually do and have cared about developing such headlamps and other workaday paraphernalia.

Is this position valid or not? Maybe the internet has changed things, and atheists are now beng more proactive, but what about the ones who can't access the www? What are you doing for African atheists who are philosophical noobs?

I know that atheism is just a lack of belief and not a moral theory etc, but England is just a country but that does not stop the English from seeking their self interest.

 

[Penumbra]

Looks like a hit-and-run OP. He's got 10 posts and hasn't been back to this thread in a week.

It looks like he's going to leave me hanging on my very important question concerning chocolate.

Thanks for that list.
Next question, I feel that atheists are at a disadvantage because they have no institutionalised philosophy or ethics outside of the atheism bit.

Disadvantage in what way? A disadvantage in the political arena? A disadvantage in terms of formulating arguments? A disadvantage when it comes to finding a welcoming community?

There was an atheist club at my university.

Wheras Christian youth can turn to the church or a priest, who might have experience in the field, an atheist may have to learn to philosophise for himself especially if his parents are not atheists. Whilst this can enable independent thinking in the long term, not everyone is going to be a skillful philosopher as a developing adult (which was true in my case). Do you feel that for example humanism, which is atheism +, is a good solution to this problem?

Well, there are already large atheist groups that lobby things and such. Such things may be important when it comes to having a political say (for instance in support of the separation of Church and State).

I don't particularly see the need for social groups to spring up concerning a shared disbelief in deities, but groups that advocate reason and/or philosophy that may include a number of atheists might not be a bad idea.

-Lyn

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think that atheists have more than their fair share of people who wrongly think that one's life has no purpose or meaning whatsoever, and that moral values are baseless (cf nihilism),

Only because atheists are anyone who is not a theist. The concept "fair share" is meaningless here, since we aren't comparing coherent groups to coherent groups. I understand that Objectivists have zero nihilists among them. Absolutely zero. Why? Because they are a coherent group with a particular philosophical ideology.

"Atheists" should not be compared to "Christians". This is comparing apples to oranges. They are not categories that are similar enough to make for a direct comparison.

What are you doing for African atheists who are philosophical noobs?

Philosophical noobs are everywhere. One doesn't need to go to Africa to find them.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I dion't know. I have the feeling that atheists are prone to nihilism. Maybe it's because atheism is seen as nihilistic by a lot of religious people ("my life would have no meaning without my faith" "no morals weithout God" etc), and people might naturally succumb to that illusion that when they reject faith, they must also automatically reject meaning and morality.

Disadvantage in what way? A disadvantage in the political arena? A disadvantage in terms of formulating arguments? A disadvantage when it comes to finding a welcoming community?

All the disadvantages of nihilism.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A few years ago I was at a humanist gathering, and we were asked who had children. One out of about thirty put up their hand. Is this low parenting rate representative? (I know it might be compensated for by the apparent 100% atheist birth rate).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I dion't know. I have the feeling that atheists are prone to nihilism.

Feeling?

Maybe it's because atheism is seen as nihilistic by a lot of religious people ("my life would have no meaning without my faith" "no morals weithout God" etc), and people might naturally succumb to that illusion that when they reject faith, they must also automatically reject meaning and morality.

In my experience, at least, not many atheists are nihilists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

A few years ago I was at a humanist gathering, and we were asked who had children. One out of about thirty put up their hand. Is this low parenting rate representative?

Possibly, I'm not sure. Humanism might attract geeks, and geeks might not be likely to have children.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Penumbra]

I dion't know. I have the feeling that atheists are prone to nihilism. Maybe it's because atheism is seen as nihilistic by a lot of religious people ("my life would have no meaning without my faith" "no morals weithout God" etc), and people might naturally succumb to that illusion that when they reject faith, they must also automatically reject meaning and morality.

That's not my experience with most atheists I know.

I tend to pity the subset of theists that claim that without their god, they'd have no morals. As in, if they were given no reward or reason for having morals, they'd ditch them. I think those types of statements say a lot about their individual character.

All the disadvantages of nihilism.

Well, depending on one's outlook, nihilism doesn't have to have disadvantages. And in addition I don't see why the disadvantages of atheism would be synonymous with the disadvantages of nihilism.

-Lyn

 

[Pacioli]

...It looks like he's going to leave me hanging on my very important question concerning chocolate.

Perhaps I have missed the symbolic significance of the question through not reading the entire thread, but as a wholly unrepresentative atheist I can answer that I prefer chocolate in the range 45%-70% cocoa.

Any further important questions of atheists, I will be pleased to do my best.

In answer to GrowingSmaller, nihilism has passed me by completely, nor have I noticed it in any friends of an atheist (or other) persuasion.

cheers

 

[Inviolable]

Go ahead.

Pie or cake?

 

[The4thrider]

Pie or cake?

Pie

 

[Eudaimonist]

Pie or cake?

Pie, of course. The cake is a lie.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Penumbra]

Perhaps I have missed the symbolic significance of the question through not reading the entire thread, but as a wholly unrepresentative atheist I can answer that I prefer chocolate in the range 45%-70% cocoa.

Oh there's a lot of symbolism there. It's a very complicated and esoteric question meant to reveal the very nature of your soul...

You see, if you pick milk chocolate like the masses, then you have a bit of both light and darkness in you as most people do. If you pick dark chocolate, then I'm afraid your dark and unsaved soul is completely lost. If you are the rarity that likes white chocolate the best, then your soul is pure and brilliant.

Or I just like asking people what kind of chocolate they like.

Any further important questions of atheists, I will be pleased to do my best.

Well, if you want, you can stand in for the OP and answer my question about origins.

What do you think is most probable about all of existence? It came from nothing, or it has always existed in some form? Or something else? Or no idea?

-Lyn

 

[Pacioli]

Oh there's a lot of symbolism there. It's a very complicated and esoteric question meant to reveal the very nature of your soul...

My soul is now exposed in a range of 45-70%, but I can cope . Now, where did I put the chocolate?

Well, if you want, you can stand in for the OP and answer my question about origins.

What do you think is most probable about all of existence? It came from nothing, or it has always existed in some form? Or something else? Or no idea?

My present understanding of the literature is that our space-time had a singular start but that this does not imply there was nothing before that, nor for that matter in parallel. It is an error to somehow embed the universe inside more of the same, i.e. the universe is not an object in the universe. This does not mean it arose from nothing but at present we are unable to probe into a singularity except by theoretical approaches. Some of these may provide testable hypotheses which will enable us to say with reasonable confidence whether there is, for example, a multiverse.

Adding any god to this is neither parsimonious nor predictively useful.