Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?

[Cute Tink]

Just out of interest's sake. Do any of you (Gadarene, Huntun, Ana the 1st, madaz, Chany or Cute Tink) disagree with the following statements:

I reject supernatural claims and believe in only natural phenomena as explanations Yes
I believe in secular government I think it is the better choice
I do not highly value any religious texts I value parts of them, but I don't consider them evidence of higher beings
I am politically liberal or left-leaning Libertarian, so kinda, on some issues
I am pro-choice Kinda, I'm more along the lines that I don't think outlawing it will have the desired effect of stopping abortion. I am not that in favor of abortion though
I value higher education In general, yes
I value the scientific method Yes
I believe that we make our own purpose Yes
I believe morality is not objective but is either the product of evolution or is ultimately relativistic In large part, yes, but some things are less arguable IMO
I believe in evolution as a meta-narrative to how we came to be human I'm not sure what you mean by meta-narrative, but I do consider it to be the most likely explanation
I do not believe in a soul Correct

I do know of some rather conservative atheists when it comes to some subject (including abortion). Don't assume that to be atheist means you are totally pro-choice (my position, while technically pro-choice is a bit iffy).

 

[Received]

When you say "advocating for" do you mean making a claim like "atheism is better than christianity because..." or do you mean arguing for the position that atheism is true?

I haven't made up my mind on that. The complicated part of me says that any atheism that has any ideology is positive (thanks to Gadarene for pointing out the other uses of this term), and the only real negative atheism (which you're talking about in the OP) logically means not making any arguments against God at all, just as a-leprechaunists don't spend time at all arguing against the existence of leprechauns. If atheism is all about not believing in something, you don't speak about the something you don't believe in; you just pass it over in silence.

The less complicated part of me, OTOH, says you can argue that atheism is true and be a negative atheist, so long as you don't advocate for any ideology that's part of what you think is inherent to atheism, e.g., evolution, relativism, rationalism, empiricism, scientism, etc. You see lots of folks from the new atheist crowd acting like this.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lack of belief in something still effects how you act.

Inaction is a type of action and it changes the outcome of events.

For example, if all the US soldiers in Iraq stopped believing the authority of the US government and laid down their arms, that lack of belief would certainly have had huge ramifications for geopolitics and US foreign policy.

I don't believe in the Islamic faith. If I did, I may find myself on a hajj pilgrimage at some point in my life. That lack of belief influences where I will be in time and space as well as who I interact with an meet. That lack of belief also likely influences how I think and how I view the world. It gives me different perspectives and ideologies on Islamic fundamentalism and Wahabism. It gives me different perspectives on US-Saudi relations. It perhaps changes my ideas about the public funding for the local mosque. It perhaps changes my ideologies about politicians depending if they appear pro-Islamic or anti-Islamic.

I don't think you realize how much a lack of belief in something can effect the world. Everything you don't believe in effects what you do.

I certainly wouldn't say everything you don't believe in affects what you do. I'm assuming that you don't believe in unicorns...how much does that lack of belief affect what you do? You can make the argument that I don't go to church because I'm an atheist (although I know plenty of christians who don't go to church) but you can't make the argument that I would go to church if I wasn't an atheist. You can only speculate about what a person does not do because of a lack of belief....and such speculations don't really inform you about that person at all.

I think that believers want the label atheism to carry with it a bunch associated beliefs and practices because without those, it's hard to demonize an atheist. How do you criticize and judge someone whom the only thing you know about is the lack of one particular belief? Youcannot make claims about that person's morals, behavior, beliefs, intellect, ideologies, etc...because you don't really know these things. You would have to spend time getting to know each atheist as a person...not simply a label...to find out all those things about them. If you're getting to know them personally....that makes it that much harder to judge them harshly.

I think that's behind the need of some believers attempts to attach all sorts of beliefs and behaviors to atheism. Without that label meaning more than a lack of belief in god, there isn't much to dislike/hate/mistrust/fear. Without the ability to paint us all in broad strokes and generalizations...one would have to actually get to know atheists as people, not just a label. Lol terrifying.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Why are Atheists so disliked."

Lol well it was such a good post it worked for both.

 

[Ana the Ist]

To me, these two sentences contradict one another.

In the second sentence you are saying that disbelief in a deity has an impact upon a person's worldview.

Thus, collectively, a group of people that all share that disbelief in a deity are likely to be impacted in similar ways and thus converge to somewhat similar worldviews.

And to me, "worldview" and "ideology" are very similar concepts. So an atheist worldview and an atheist ideology are similar concepts as well.

You've mistaken what was said. Look at it this way, two atheists each have their own worldview which isn't based on atheism. Each of the two atheists' lack of belief in god affects their worldview in some small, possibly insignificant, way. The way in which each atheists' lack of belief affects their respective worldviews is different from each other.

Does that make more sense? Atheism can impact a worldview (though I can't think of a way mine does), but it doesn't have to, and the way it impacts a person's worldview can be wildly different from atheist to atheist.

If you still don't understand, the important thing to remember is that atheism isn't a worldview in of itself.

 

[Davian]

...

I don't think you realize how much a lack of belief in something can effect the world. Everything you don't believe in effects what you do.

I don't see how. When I stand on a hilltop, or tramp through a jungle, all the gods, fairies, aliens, and monsters that I do not believe in don't run through my head. I marvel at the geology/biology without all of that - it doesn't even occur to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The short answer....no.

The longer answer is a bit more complicated than that. There's a tendency I've seen from christians on CF that is quite ridiculous. Every atheist who has been posting for more than a week knows exactly what I'm talking about. It's the tendency that some christians have to explain what they think the "atheist worldview" or "atheist belief system" or more incredibly the "atheist religion" entails. It's really quite astounding...so I'm going to help out all those christians who think they understand what those things are.

They're myths. They're crutches. They are works of fiction that christians (and other religions, of course) have created in order to wrap their minds around something they don't understand...namely atheism. I'm going to let all of you know a little secret right now, coming straight from the mouth of an "insider" who's been an atheist since before he was thirteen...there is no "atheist worldview". None. It doesn't exist. In fact, and you may want to sit down for this part, the label "atheist" itself is almost entirely meaningless. "Atheist" describes exactly one thing about me...and it's something that I don't believe. Think on that for a moment. It tells you nothing about what I do believe, it just tells you that I don't believe in god...that's all. Could you imagine if we had labels for everything you don't believe in? A-unicornist, a-vampirest, a-boogeymanist and so-on and so-on. We would end up with countless labels that we could stick to anyone and it wouldn't really tell you anything about them.

Don't believe me? I could drop the label atheist right now and it wouldn't affect the way I perceive myself at all. I could never use the term "atheist" again and it wouldn't change a thing about me. If someone were to ask, "Do you believe in god?" or some similar question I could simply answer "no" and I haven't lost anything even though I don't identify as an atheist anymore. That's not really something you can do as a christian or muslim or jew because so many other beliefs and views and traditions are attached to the labels you have for your religion. Nothing is attached to atheism though...nothing.

I know about now some of you are saying, "What about humanism/naturalism/rationalism/communism/secularism/empiricism/etc/etc....?" What about them? I honestly couldn't define any of those terms if you put a gun to my head. I have a few vague notions of a few of them...but I don't ascribe to any of those beliefs entirely...nor do I really care. None of them have anything to do with atheism. None of them have anything to do with my lack of belief in god.

I hope this clears up some things for those of you whom I keep seeing make the mistake of attaching other beliefs to atheism. You're wrong and you should stop. If in the future I see you doing this, I will be linking you to this thread and I would encourage any atheists to do the same.

For the sake of discussion, I'll always consider the possibility that I'm wrong. If you feel this OP is mistaken somehow, and that the answer to the title is "yes"....please explain. I would love to see it. Thanks for reading.

Ana,

You said:

"...there is no "atheist worldview". None. It doesn't exist. In fact, and you may want to sit down for this part, the label "atheist" itself is almost entirely meaningless."

While atheism itself, as a conceptual entity, may very well not provide a 'worldview,' it certainly lends itself to a particular worldview where human reason, and accompanying sciences, are considered the primary modes of finding meaning in our world. The concept of atheism is a doorway that potently leads through a passage, and it takes one's mind "here," not there, leading typically to the worldview of 'scientism.' If, as an atheist, you have not yet assumed the power of science over every other thought form, then stick around, because you will. As Alex Rosenberg (2011) has stated:

There is much more to atheism than its knockdown arguments that there is no God. There is the whole rest of the worldview that comes along with atheism. It's a demanding, rigorous, breathtaking grip on reality, one that has been vindicated beyond reasonable doubt. It's called science...[in fact] an unblinking scientific worldview requires atheism. p. viii
​

So, according to Rosenberg, the fact that you are an atheist implies to some extent that you've either already assumed a certain worldview to become an atheist, or that the harboring of atheism almost automatically will call up the worldview of scientism.

References
​

Rosenberg, A. (2011). The atheist's guide to reality. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I haven't made up my mind on that. The complicated part of me says that any atheism that has any ideology is positive (thanks to Gadarene for pointing out the other uses of this term), and the only real negative atheism (which you're talking about in the OP) logically means not making any arguments against God at all, just as a-leprechaunists don't spend time at all arguing against the existence of leprechauns. If atheism is all about not believing in something, you don't speak about the something you don't believe in; you just pass it over in silence.

The less complicated part of me, OTOH, says you can argue that atheism is true and be a negative atheist, so long as you don't advocate for any ideology that's part of what you think is inherent to atheism, e.g., evolution, relativism, rationalism, empiricism, scientism, etc. You see lots of folks from the new atheist crowd acting like this.

I'll have to disagree...especially with this statement...

" If atheism is all about not believing in something, you don't speak about the something you don't believe in; you just pass it over in silence."

So you're telling me if 90% of the people around you believed in leprechauns, and based their values on the great leprechaun king's teachings, and tried to pass legislation based upon those teachings, and told you that if you didn't accept the leprechaun king as your savior you'd go to leprechaun hell when you died (it's under a mushroom somewhere), and came knocking on your door at 8am to give you the good news about the leprechaun king, and told your girlfriend not to marry you because you don't believe in the leprechaun king....

...you see where I'm going with this??.....

....you're telling me you wouldn't say anything at all? You'd just keep what you believed to be true inside you and never challenge anyone's beliefs in the leprechaun king?

Does your statement sound a little silly to you now?

Arguing for the truth isn't wrong. I can't even comprehend all the silly/crazy/dumb beliefs mankind would still hold if people just kept the truth to themselves. Even christianity became popular because the people who believed it was true didn't hold it in quietly. They challenged the belief that there are multiple gods. I'm not saying christianity is true lol but this notion that some christians hold about "atheists shouldn't be arguing against god, I don't argue with children about Santa...when I don't believe in something I don't go around arguing with people about it" is a load of bunko. When christians and christianity affect my life as little as Santa, leprechauns, and unicorns do...I'll stop arguing about god's existence.

However, your point about advocating it for some reasons outside of "truth" could have some validity. It really depends on what argument they're making. For example, if they say "atheism is better than christianity because atheist have more free time...they don't have to waste Sundays in church." that statement isn't about some belief that is inherent in atheism, it's about a negative aspect of being christian (less free time). If they say something like, "Atheists would make better presidents since they have no biases against minorities." that would be a statement of some sort of ideology that the person is trying to attach to atheism...and they would be wrong.

 

[Received]

I haven't read anything in your comment except the part about my comment sounding silly.

No, I don't think it sounds silly. I meant it seriously and as a result of a lot of contemplation on a subject that's difficult to me.

 

[Received]

I'll have to disagree...especially with this statement...

" If atheism is all about not believing in something, you don't speak about the something you don't believe in; you just pass it over in silence."

Remember that this was only "part" of me, i.e., not what I believe, given that I haven't made up my mind on this subject. What about the other "part"?

So you're telling me if 90% of the people around you believed in leprechauns, and based their values on the great leprechaun king's teachings, and tried to pass legislation based upon those teachings, and told you that if you didn't accept the leprechaun king as your savior you'd go to leprechaun hell when you died (it's under a mushroom somewhere), and came knocking on your door at 8am to give you the good news about the leprechaun king, and told your girlfriend not to marry you because you don't believe in the leprechaun king....

...you see where I'm going with this??.....

....you're telling me you wouldn't say anything at all? You'd just keep what you believed to be true inside you and never challenge anyone's beliefs in the leprechaun king?

I'm telling you that at most my response would be pure incredulity, based an inability to even make out what they're saying, given that to me they're believing in something that doesn't exist. My degree of incredulity would be proportionate to how strongly they believe in this nonexistent thing. And parallel to everything, I wouldn't spend time debunking something that is ridiculous like this, unless my life or free is threatened.

Arguing for the truth isn't wrong. I can't even comprehend all the silly/crazy/dumb beliefs mankind would still hold if people just kept the truth to themselves. Even christianity became popular because the people who believed it was true didn't hold it in quietly. They challenged the belief that there are multiple gods. I'm not saying christianity is true lol but this notion that some christians hold about "atheists shouldn't be arguing against god, I don't argue with children about Santa...when I don't believe in something I don't go around arguing with people about it" is a load of bunko. When christians and christianity affect my life as little as Santa, leprechauns, and unicorns do...I'll stop arguing about god's existence.

Again, that's only one "part" of what I think. If you take this part further, all it means is that there's no such thing as the idea that atheism is "just" lack of belief; it would mean, rather, that atheism always means advocating for something, positive atheism.

However, your point about advocating it for some reasons outside of "truth" could have some validity. It really depends on what argument they're making. For example, if they say "atheism is better than christianity because atheist have more free time...they don't have to waste Sundays in church." that statement isn't about some belief that is inherent in atheism, it's about a negative aspect of being christian (less free time). If they say something like, "Atheists would make better presidents since they have no biases against minorities." that would be a statement of some sort of ideology that the person is trying to attach to atheism...and they would be wrong.

Atheism is by definition without ideology. I means, purely and simply, the lack of belief in any deities. Following this, to "practice" your atheism in any way that implicitly or explicitly holds that certain things just naturally come packaged with atheism (reason, science, humanism, etc.) is to go beyond what atheism means here as lacking ideology. Therefore, this makes atheism not not believing in something (deities), but not believing in deities and believing in certain values or ideas instead, which makes atheism much more than just a lack of belief.

 

[Hetta]

Don't believe me? I could drop the label atheist right now and it wouldn't affect the way I perceive myself at all. I could never use the term "atheist" again and it wouldn't change a thing about me. If someone were to ask, "Do you believe in god?" or some similar question I could simply answer "no" and I haven't lost anything even though I don't identify as an atheist anymore. That's not really something you can do as a christian or muslim or jew because so many other beliefs and views and traditions are attached to the labels you have for your religion. Nothing is attached to atheism though...nothing.

I understand what you are saying, and I have come to understand that you are not a formalized group. However, I just wanted to say to be careful using the word "nothing". I understand the context, but there are many Christians who think that because they do not believe in God, atheists do not believe in anything at all. Yet, those of you with whom I interact have shown that you do believe in ethics, in morality, in honesty, in love, in everything else basically that I could name that is "good" and is decent. So, I just wanted to say that, or something like it, but I lost the grip of both the English language and what I was trying to say about half way through. Sorry.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Never heard of her. But a quick look at Wikipedia shows that she does not want more religious involvement in the government. So she fails to satisfy the list of qualities that I gave.

A teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars is as likely as finding an atheist that satisfies all the qualities I gave in that list.



I disagree. From my post to Gadarene:

"Naturalism follows from atheism quite..naturally. Because atheism does not believe in a god and, historically in the West, the supernatural has closely been related to God. Thus, it seems reasonable for atheists to tend to reject supernaturalism along with God.

Secular government seems to follow from atheism. Because atheism is not associated with religion so separation of church and state serves an atheists interests politically.

Moral relativism seems to follow from atheism. Because atheism does not believe in a god-figure which lays down objective moral laws. It seems more reasonable for an atheist to believe that morals are simply the result of evolution or human constructions because...where else could they come from?"

All the ideologies and beliefs I have listed in previous posts, I think naturally follow from atheism. Or perhaps atheism naturally follows from them.

Either way, they are closely related (even if the direction of causality is fuzzy). They are far more related than the height of a person and their religious beliefs.



To me, all you've done is define Christianity.

We can define words, sure. But your thread isn't about definitions.

You asked, "Is there more to atheism than lack of belief?"

Christianity is defined as the group that believe that Jesus died and rose again as their personal savior. Is there more to Christianity than that? Yes! Plenty more, there's a ton of philosophies and metaphysical frameworks and philosophical baggage that comes along with that.

Same goes for atheism in my mind.

Maybe you just don't understand what an ideology is. Here's a simple definition...

"1.a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

Perhaps you're not quite sure what a worldview is...I'll help...

"1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group."

Now, I'll make this easy...if you believe there is an "atheist ideology" go ahead and list the ideas and ideals which you would have to hold in order to be an atheist. I'll give you an example of what I mean...

To be a communist means you believe in the communist ideology. What are the ideals of communism? 1. The abolition of all personal property. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. The end of all rights of inheritance. 4.....

And so on... You see, if you don't believe in the ideals of the communist ideology, you aren't a communist. If there is an atheist ideology then simply list all the ideals of it that are required to be considered an atheist. I'll wait...

Maybe you think it would be easier to explain the atheist worldview? If so...you would be wrong. The first definition seems simple enough, but it's not. You can take me and any other atheist on here and after just a few questions you'll find that we disagree on many things regarding our perspective of the world. You might be able to find a few things that I and other atheists agree upon regarding how we see the world...but only one of them will have anything to do with atheism. That one thing is that we both don't believe in god's existence. The difference between this and a "christian worldview" is that I could take any two christians here on CF and find many many things they agree upon regarding how they view the world and they will have everything to do with christianity. The second definition of "worldview" really won't be any easier than coming up with an answer to what an "atheist ideology" would be.

Don't let me stop you though. I'd really enjoy seeing you try to come up with what an atheist ideology or worldview entails.

So you see, your opinion of which beliefs atheists are likely to agree upon doesn't have anything to do with an atheist ideology/worldview. None of those are required to be an atheist. On the contrary, it's not hard at all to come up with the beliefs which are necessarily held in order to be a christian.

Edit: regarding S.E. Cupp, maybe you should look into something other than Wikipedia next time...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-i-would-never-vote-for-an-atheist-president/

Not only does she think that political leaders should have religious beliefs guiding them, last I checked she was very conservative and pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and all the other positions you seem to think no atheist holds. Yet, she claims she doesn't believe in any god...so she is an atheist.

 

[Gadarene]

Yea, and I said in my first post in this thread that, by a very strict and semantic definition of atheist, there is nothing beyond atheism except lack of belief.

But what I am saying is that, in our society and on this forum and in the "real world" (beyond semantic definitions), language operates in such a way that there is more attached to the word "atheism" than simply lack of belief.

You may not like that these other things are attached to it, but along with atheism comes some pretty common ideological beliefs like:

-naturalism
-politically left-leaning
-believe in secular government
-do not highly value any religious texts
-are pro-choice
-value higher education
-value the scientific method
-believe that we make our own purpose
-believe morality is not objective but is either the product of evolution or is ultimately relativistic
-believe in evolution as a meta-narrative to how we came to be human
-do not believe in a soul

Which still have nothing to do with atheism. You can not be all of these things and still be an atheist. The problem is when you start stereotyping atheists as necessarily believing in things. No-one has said there isn't commonality between atheists in terms of their other beliefs, only that said commonality hasn't anything to do with what being an atheist is.

Call them subtypes of atheism of you want, but please stop pretending there is one official definitive form of atheism. It is as stupid as insisting that all true Christians are catholics.

Again, yes, in some theoretical world such a person could exist that fulfills this idealized, semantic definition.

But, as I said, in the "real world", language operates in such a way where other things are attached to the word atheism, whether you like it or not.

Please drop the snide appeals to the "real world".

As an actual atheist - which you are not - I have never seen atheists go around claiming other atheists who are right-wing, pro-life, etc. aren't atheists. That's a pretty strong indicator that atheism doesn't actually necessarily involve the things in your list.

I'll take that real world experience of atheists and atheism (you know, from that real world you're allegedly so fond of) over the waffle of someone who isn't an atheist anyday.

And this is just a basic induction. No atheist I have ever met fulfills all those traits listed, thus it seems reasonable to assume that no atheist exists that fulfills those traits.

Ah yes, all hail leftright's personal experience, the arbiter of reality.

Why all of them in one person? It is enough to simply demonstrate that an atheist can hold a contrary position on one of them, for each listed trait.

And I'd say you're not even paying attention to the atheists here and what they think.

For starters:

PsychoSarah is a pro-lifer.
Miniverchivi is pretty strongly right-wing iirc as are a few other atheist posters. He's certainly pretty critical of contemporary secularism.
Eudaimonist is an objective moralist.

You didn't list it, but TerranceL and myself are feminist-critical, and feminism is a core part of contemporary leftist thought.

Oh, but wait, these traits aren't all combined in one individual uber-atheist, so I guess that means they're necessarily part of atheism or whatever

I see no point paying much heed to the vague word "value" in your list either.

I'm not simply stereotyping.

Yes, you are. That is what your stupid reference to Russell's teapot is. Look harder - or try coming up with less ridiculous criteria for falsifying your own concocted definitions.

I think certain aspects of this follow directly from atheism.

Naturalism follows from atheism quite..naturally. Because atheism does not believe in a god and, historically in the West, the supernatural has closely been related to God. Thus, it seems reasonable for atheists to tend to reject supernaturalism along with God.

Secular government seems to follow from atheism. Because atheism is not associated with religion so separation of church and state serves an atheists interests politically.

Moral relativism seems to follow from atheism. Because atheism does not believe in a god-figure which lays down objective moral laws. It seems more reasonable for an atheist to believe that morals are simply the result of evolution or human constructions because...where else could they come from?

These causes are not just random correlations to me.

There are ways these correlate with belief in Christianity as well, so your statements here prove nothing.

I was all of these things long before I was an atheist.

And again - there exist atheists critical of these ideas.

 

[Gadarene]

Just out of interest's sake. Do any of you (Gadarene, Huntun, Ana the 1st, madaz, Chany or Cute Tink) disagree with the following statements:

I reject supernatural claims and believe in only natural phenomena as explanations

No simple answer here. Supernatural phenomena that can be explained will just be reclassified as natural. The problem here is one of simplistic categorisation.

I believe in secular government

I was a secularist long before I was an atheist.

I do not highly value any religious texts

Define "value".

I am politically liberal or left-leaning

I take that label, but I'm pretty critical of a lot of what the left does, particularly with regard to its rhetoric on social issues.

I am pro-choice

Again, technically yes - but I maintain that the best stances on both sides are effectively identical. It is a matter of choice at that point as to which label one self-identifies with.

I value higher education
I value the scientific method

Define "value"

I believe that we make our own purpose

Yes.

I believe morality is not objective but is either the product of evolution or is ultimately relativistic

Again, I think this subjective/objective categorisation is woefully oversimplistic. My moral system contains both subjective and objective components.

I believe in evolution as a meta-narrative to how we came to be human

No.

I accept the scientific consensus on evolution.

I do not believe in a soul

Define "soul".

Because I mean, you guys are criticizing me for stereotyping and making generalization...but do any of you actually disagree with my assessment of atheism-as-an-ideology? I made a list of statements of belief; do any of you disagree with the statements?

Frequently - they are very poorly-defined.

We can talk semantics and definitions and reductio ad absurdums all day, but in the "real world", do most atheists agree?

Define "most". At what point can you justify generalisations like the ones you have made that isn't utterly arbitrary?

 

[Gadarene]

I think that's behind the need of some believers attempts to attach all sorts of beliefs and behaviors to atheism. Without that label meaning more than a lack of belief in god, there isn't much to dislike/hate/mistrust/fear. Without the ability to paint us all in broad strokes and generalizations...one would have to actually get to know atheists as people, not just a label. Lol terrifying.

This.

It's some Christians throwing their toys out of the pram because atheism isn't a totalistic worldview like their beliefs are (nor does most atheism make any positive claims), and their own ideology is so ingrained they can't think outside of that framework.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

Its a common mistake. The only difference between atheists and Christians is that you atheists don't believe in God. Other then that we are quite similar.

 

[Gadarene]

I'm telling you that at most my response would be pure incredulity, based an inability to even make out what they're saying, given that to me they're believing in something that doesn't exist. My degree of incredulity would be proportionate to how strongly they believe in this nonexistent thing. And parallel to everything, I wouldn't spend time debunking something that is ridiculous like this, unless my life or free is threatened.

How is this any different to people confronted with any idea they think to be wrong? We're not arguing the toss on theism because of the notion that god doesn't exist. We're arguing it because theists exist and very often cause quite a few whoopsies for everyone along the way.

This is what happens to ideas seen as grossly wrongheaded and/or harmful. Christianity is in no different a situation.

Atheism is by definition without ideology. I means, purely and simply, the lack of belief in any deities. Following this, to "practice" your atheism in any way that implicitly or explicitly holds that certain things just naturally come packaged with atheism (reason, science, humanism, etc.) is to go beyond what atheism means here as lacking ideology. Therefore, this makes atheism not not believing in something (deities), but not believing in deities and believing in certain values or ideas instead, which makes atheism much more than just a lack of belief.

The only people doing this here are Christians.

And I think if you actually looked closely at the views of more strident atheists, they don't actually claim such ideas are necessarily part of atheism.

As I've said - show me atheist big cheeses pulling no-true-atheists with even a fraction of the rate at which Christians play no-true-Christians, and this might be worth considering as a claim.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana,

You said:

While atheism itself, as a conceptual entity, may very well not provide a 'worldview,' it certainly lends itself to a particular worldview where human reason, and accompanying sciences, are considered the primary modes of finding meaning in our world. The concept of atheism is a doorway that potently leads through a passage, and it takes one's mind "here," not there, leading typically to the worldview of 'scientism.' If, as an atheist, you have not yet assumed the power of science over every other thought form, then stick around, because you will. As Alex Rosenberg (2011) has stated:

There is much more to atheism than its knockdown arguments that there is no God. There is the whole rest of the worldview that comes along with atheism. It's a demanding, rigorous, breathtaking grip on reality, one that has been vindicated beyond reasonable doubt. It's called science...[in fact] an unblinking scientific worldview requires atheism. p. viii
​

So, according to Rosenberg, the fact that you are an atheist implies to some extent that you've either already assumed a certain worldview to become an atheist, or that the harboring of atheism almost automatically will call up the worldview of scientism.

References
​

Rosenberg, A. (2011). The atheist's guide to reality. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

I actually had to look up scientism in order to respond to this, as I didn't really know what it entailed. Now that I've actually read what it's about, I can honestly say I don't agree with it. Some of it sounds good, sure, but my first impression is that it discounts too much of what could be called "true" simply because it's not measurable or demonstrable. Of course, I cannot say with any certainty what I will believe in the future, and I find it odd that a man who believes in scientism thinks he can. Seems ironic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I actually had to look up scientism in order to respond to this, as I didn't really know what it entailed. Now that I've actually read what it's about, I can honestly say I don't agree with it. Some of it sounds good, sure, but my first impression is that it discounts too much of what could be called "true" simply because it's not measurable or demonstrable. Of course, I cannot say with any certainty what I will believe in the future, and I find it odd that a man who believes in scientism thinks he can. Seems ironic.

Actually, what Rosenberg is saying is that if you are an atheist, you don't really have other 'legitimate' perceptual options than to end up within the milieu of 'scientism.' If you're not devoted to science as the only way of engaging the world, you're not quite engaging the world. Of course, his conclusion is just one answer that an atheist might give, being that he is an atheist.

What's even more interesting is that he supposes that scientism (along with its counterpart, atheism) will lead one inevitably to nihilism, although a 'nice' kind. So in essence, in his view, atheism, while not a worldview, brings almost automatically in its wake a perceptual default to scientism and nice nihilism; its like atheism has a ball and chain around its ankle.

But, maybe he's wrong. Atheists like him can be wrong too, since they're human.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually, what Rosenberg is saying is that if you are an atheist, you don't really have other 'legitimate' perceptual options than to end up within the milieu of 'scientism.' If you're not devoted to science as the only way of engaging the world, you're not quite engaging the world. Of course, his conclusion is just one answer that an atheist might give, being that he is an atheist.

What's even more interesting is that he supposes that scientism (along with its counterpart, atheism) will lead one inevitably to nihilism, although a 'nice' kind. So in essence, in his view, atheism, while not a worldview, brings almost automatically in its wake a perceptual default to scientism and nice nihilism; its like atheism has a ball and chain around its ankle.

But, maybe he's wrong. Atheists like him can be wrong too, since they're human.

You see the irony behind that statement though...don't you? He came to a conclusion about atheism led to the truth claim which you provided as his quote in your first post. How did he come to this conclusion? My guess would be that he didn't use science...and yet he clearly thinks it's a truth regardless. It seems that he would have to agree that there are other methods outside of the realm of science that one can use to arrive at the truth...and not all truths are something measurable/quantifiable. In making his claim, he contradicted/falsified his claim.

Either that or I'm way off the mark about scientism.