Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?

[DogmaHunter]

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.

You have it backwards. Your beliefs inform your actions, yes. Your lack of belief however, does not. It might exclude some behaviour. But it will not cause specific other behaviour.

Again, it all comes back to that "a" in atheism. It means "not".

When you know I am an atheist, then you also know that I:
- do NOT pray
- do NOT attend church sermons
- do NOT consider gods to play a part in my life
- do NOT consider gods to be an answer to any question
- am NOT a theistic creationist

From there, you can rationally conclude a few other things, yes.
When it comes to explaining the universe and life, you can safely assume that I will be going with the scientific explanation. On the other hand though, MOST theists do that as well.

In any case, what will inform my actions will be OTHER beliefs. Actually POSITIVE beliefs. Too put it simplisticly: when I eat an apple, I'm not eating that apple because "i do NOT feel like eating a steak". No. I eat that apple because I feel like eating an apple.

So my worldview, my opinions, my actions, etc will be informed by things I DO believe. Not by things I DON'T believe.

And the only thing you can truelly KNOW about what I DO believe, is that gods won't be included in those beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Yes captain obvious. If we don't believe in gods, we'ld rather not have myths about gods mixed with the organizing of society and the law.

On the other hand though, you DO realise that secularism was established by theists, right? That theists in the first world value secular government as well, right?

Or would you perhaps prefer medieval theocracies with anti-science book burnings? You don't value science? You don't value education?

Moral relativism seems to follow from atheism. Because atheism does not believe in a god-figure which lays down objective moral laws.

Neither do theists. At least not in the civilised world.

These causes are not just random correlations to me.

Correlation does not imply causation. And ignoring the correlation of the same things with theism, doesn't help your case either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have it backwards. Your beliefs inform your actions, yes. Your lack of belief however, does not. It might exclude some behaviour. But it will not cause specific other behaviour.

Again, it all comes back to that "a" in atheism. It means "not".

When you know I am an atheist, then you also know that I:
- do NOT pray
- do NOT attend church sermons
- do NOT consider gods to play a part in my life
- do NOT consider gods to be an answer to any question
- am NOT a theistic creationist

From there, you can rationally conclude a few other things, yes.
When it comes to explaining the universe and life, you can safely assume that I will be going with the scientific explanation. On the other hand though, MOST theists do that as well.

In any case, what will inform my actions will be OTHER beliefs. Actually POSITIVE beliefs. Too put it simplisticly: when I eat an apple, I'm not eating that apple because "i do NOT feel like eating a steak". No. I eat that apple because I feel like eating an apple.

So my worldview, my opinions, my actions, etc will be informed by things I DO believe. Not by things I DON'T believe.

And the only thing you can truelly KNOW about what I DO believe, is that gods won't be included in those beliefs.

There's a thread in this section where several atheists mention that they attend church sometimes. Just fyi.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 hope you don't mind me having a go as well.

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

Not like it is written here.
It kind of implies that I have already decided on the answers without asking the questions. That's not what I do. Yes, I have rejected every supernatural claim that has ever been presented to me. It's likely that this trend will continue. But I don't reject it at face value. I reject it due to lack of evidence. Show me valid evidence and I'll accept it.

As for the "only natural phenomena as explanations", that doesn't make much sense. Phenomena are not the explanations themselves. They are the things that require explanations. And so far, science has proven the best tool to do so. It just so happens that the explanations always turn out to be natural.

I believe in secular government

"believe"?

Yes, governments should be secular. This has however nothing to do with my atheist, but everything with how different governmental constructs perform. Look at today's world and history. Numbers don't lie. Life in a theocracy is not pleasant. Secular democracy ensures the most freedom.

I do not highly value any religious texts

False. Religion is a major part of human history. Entire cultures have been shaped around it. Religious texts (not just the bible) are of incredible historical, cultural and artistic value.

I am politically liberal or left-leaning

I don't put political labels on my forehead. Sometimes I find myself agreeing with lefties, sometimes with the right. It depends.

I am pro-choice

I don't make sweeping statements. In case of abortion, I'ld say it depends on a case by case basis and how far the pregnancy is already progressed etc.

I value higher education

Who doesn't?

I value the scientific method

Who doesn't?

I believe that we make our own purpose

Not necessarily. Sometimes people just roll into things without ever making the decision themselves. In such cases, one could say that "purpose" kind of emerges from the situation at hand.

I'll rephrase your statement into something I can agree with:
I don't believe some cosmic agent is bestowing purpose on people, or that such a thing as "cosmic purpose" exists.

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

I consider morality to be pseudo-objective, because it is geared towards a specific outcome. It's not constant or static, because we constantly learn new things and our knowledge informs us on the consequences of actions and decisions.
I think it's a logical consequence of living in a social group.

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

What do you mean with "meta-narrative"?
Evolution is the process by which species change over time, yes.
All species are the product of evolution and we are no different.

I do not believe in a soul

I'm an atheist. Which means I don't accept theistic claims.

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?

Yes.

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

We aren't talking about "most" here. We are talking about ALL.
The only thing ALL athiests have in common is what actually defines atheism. The lack of belief in theistic claims. That is the only definition that actually includes all atheists without exception.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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"?



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.



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.



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.

I'm sorry, your response here got lost in the mix when I was replying to other posts. You claimed you wouldn't respond to "such ridiculousness" unless your life or freedom were threatened. The point I was trying to make in the scenario described was that your life was being greatly affected by that ridiculousness. In many different ways, some very general and non-specific and some that were very personal. I honestly don't think you're so passive as to let a belief you find ridiculous to affect your life so greatly. At some point, you'll advocate what you believe to be true in the hopes that whatever it is you don't believe in will stop affecting your life. Please don't take this personally, it's a sentiment that many many christians say and none believe. How many christians on CF do you suppose lack a belief in the existence of evolution? How many of these same christians are on CF trying their very hardest to disprove evolution? Why? If they don't believe it...they should just ignore it, right? More importantly, would you tell them that they should just ignore it since they don't believe it exists? What about global warming and all the christians who don't believe it exists? Should they just passively be quiet as well? Is there nothing in your life that you don't believe in that you would argue against in certain circumstances? What if your child or wife told you one day that they would now be worshipping some pagan god that you don't believe in? Would you still sit there quietly as they did their rituals and chants...day after day?

If that is the case, and I doubt it is...I think it's more likely you just hadn't thought of it very hard when you made that statement, but if that is the case then I feel sorry for you. There's nothing wrong with expressing what you believe is true. If what you believe is false, then you'll lose the argument/debate most of the time anyway. I imagine that's why they got rid of the apologetics section on this forum.

 

[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.

The other part that disagree with is, obviously, the other part you wrote lol. You're correct in saying that an atheist shouldn't advocate for an ideology which they think is inherent in atheism. The reason for that is no ideology is inherent in atheism. As another poster pointed out, a lot of atheists agree with many of the things you listed. None of these beliefs, however, arise because of a belief in atheism. Atheism doesn't make evolution true...scientific evidence does that. Atheism doesn't make relativism true. Now that I think of it, the more abstract a belief is (like relativism or rationalism) the less one is likely to be able to prove it true.

I wouldn't hesitate to explain to another atheist who thinks some ideology is a part of atheism why he/she is wrong. Atheists have a wide and often unrelated range of beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

In general, neither does anyone else. On average, it is a strawman made up by people who object to the use of actual science to disembowel their pet beliefs.

 

[Gadarene]

In general, neither does anyone else. On average, it is a strawman made up by people who object to the use of actual science to disembowel their pet beliefs.

^this.

I've never seen anyone accused of scientism who actually thinks that science can explain everything.

 

[Received]

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.

I can only answer your question with another question: why don't you spend half your day discounting leprechauns, square circles, puppy-kittens, and intelligent Sarah Palins?

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

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.

I think they do, and I don't need to pull any no-true-atheist cards because it's mostly a matter of implicit behavior, not explicitly stated ideology. Few atheists (but not none) are going to be like, "well, yeah, atheism also means being reasonable," but plenty more atheists are going to associate themselves with rationalism, scientism, whatever without distinguishing this from their atheism. It's like the silly preps we remember from high school: they never say they value acting superficially as part of their prephood, but they act consistently in such a way where superficiality is part and parcel of prephood. Same thing with atheists and rationalism, or humanism, or scientism (just as there are many different types of theists based on values and ideology, so there are different types of atheists).

 

[Received]

The other part that disagree with is, obviously, the other part you wrote lol. You're correct in saying that an atheist shouldn't advocate for an ideology which they think is inherent in atheism. The reason for that is no ideology is inherent in atheism. As another poster pointed out, a lot of atheists agree with many of the things you listed. None of these beliefs, however, arise because of a belief in atheism. Atheism doesn't make evolution true...scientific evidence does that. Atheism doesn't make relativism true. Now that I think of it, the more abstract a belief is (like relativism or rationalism) the less one is likely to be able to prove it true.

I never said atheism makes anything like evolution or relativism true. And you're describing what I call negative atheism. I'm saying there's another type of atheism that implicitly or explicitly associates values and ideas with one's atheism. Appealing to the textbook definition of atheism is fallacious here; we're not talking about textbook atheists, but about atheists who attribute something more to atheism than just atheism (lack of belief in deities). That's why I'm using another term: positive atheism.

I wouldn't hesitate to explain to another atheist who thinks some ideology is a part of atheism why he/she is wrong. Atheists have a wide and often unrelated range of beliefs.

Good. That doesn't mean there isn't a type of atheism (positive atheism) that is running amuck.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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?

This is demonstrably false. Sam Harris wrote a whole book on his views on an objective moral system.

 

[Chany]

This is demonstrably false. Sam Harris wrote a whole book on his views on an objective moral system.

I'm reading through it right now. It's an updated version of utilitarianism, with much needed word changes and a focus upon objective facts. I wish he went more in depth into the meta-ethics of it in the philosophical sense (such as, why be moral), but maybe I haven't gotten there yet.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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).

Thanks for the reply.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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.

Fair enough.

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.

Yea, same goes for pretty much any label. No group is homogeneous.

But you asked if there is more to atheism than simply lack of belief. And I contend there is because there are definite trends among self-identifying atheists that go beyond random correlation.

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.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to demonize anyone.

Labels, generalizations and stereotypes are actually really useful because as humans, we don't have time to get to know each person we interact with on a personal level. Evolution has taught us to make quick judgments about a person and we do it constantly all the time. Its also a way to categorize people so we can remember them.

"Generalizations" and "stereotypes" are seen as a terrible thing it seems, especially on this forum. People get all upset if you stereotype them...even if the person doing the stereotyping is correct!

Atheist: "I'm an atheist."
Me: "Oh, so you're likely politically liberal because that's a fairly statistically reasonable assumption."
Atheist: "Don't stereotype me! Not all atheists are liberal you know!"
Me: "Oh my bad, so you're conservative?"
Atheist: "No...no I'm liberal."

I don't know. I think labels are useful because they can give you a lot of information very quickly. If someone tells you they are a Christian, that gives you a lot of information about what they likely believe. You might be wrong, but at least it gives you some information as to where to place your reference point.

I think the same goes with atheism. And that's why I said there's more to atheism than just lack of belief. If someone tells me they are an atheist, that gives me a reference point and lot of information about what they are likely to agree or disagree with. Sure, I might be wrong and there is always nuance as each individual is unique.

And if someone doesn't want a label (and the associated stereotypes attached), then don't use the label.

Stereotypes are useful if used properly: as reasonable statistical assumptions.

I mean, if you have 100 atheists, how many do you think believe in the supernatural?

Stereotypes can be statistical in that, if I meet an atheist I can be 90-100% sure that they do not believe in supernatural agents or causes.

I'm not out to demonize anyone. I'm just using the information that I've seen, read, heard or experienced to make a synthesis about the myriad number of labels people apply to themselves.

Isn't that what everyone does all the time? Often subconciously?

 

[Huntun]

Reductio ad absurdum


Perhaps if we lived in a world where the beliefs of billions of svirfneblin adherents affected the world. Perhaps if we lived in a world where svirfneblin was a dominant historical figure who had influenced philosophy, religion, politics and science for the last 5000 years. Perhaps then we would need a label for those that don't believe in svirfneblin. Until then, take your reductio arguments elsewhere.

So the entity or religion one refrains from believing in or adopting has to be old and popular before refraining from believing or adopting it itself necessarily becomes it's own special ideology.

Do you have any other example of a lack of belief in something necessarily counting as an ideology or is it only lack of belief in God?

I have a hobby known as astampcollectioning. That means I don't collect stamps. This lack of stamp collection is necessarily a hobby in and of itself because so many other people do collect stamps.

 

[Huntun]

Double post

 

[Huntun]

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

.

I disagree with a few. I highly value the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi. The Diamond Sutra is nice too. I believe it's possible certain events that are often labeled "supernatural" may exist/take place but I reject the word "supernatural" itself as nonsensical. In terms of political persuasion I'm a centrist with an interest in what is occasionally called Radical Centrism and I also value pragmatism over ideology.

Ultimately what I believe shouldn't alter the meaning of the term atheism which is very limited in scope though.

I'm not sure why you put some of those statements as indicative of atheism either. Many theists would be likely to agree with some of those.. Who, save maybe a fringe element, wouldn't want the government to be secular? Some theists are even naturalists too like the process theology people.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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...

Ok. I think I finally see your point of view. I think we have been talking past each other for the last 8 pages of this thread.

When I read the question: "Is there more to atheism than lack of belief?", I thought you were asking if there is more associated with the idea of atheism than purely lack of belief.

In that case, I would argue yes. I think there are ideas and views and philosophies that flow out of atheism and thus atheists are statistically more likely to be a secularist, naturalist etc if you are also an atheist.

But you weren't really asking that question. You were asking if there is anything necessary for you to be an atheist beyond lack of belief.

My answer to that is: no.

There is no additional criteria for you to be an atheist beyond lack of belief in god(s).


So we were getting stuck on "necessity" versus "effects".

I think atheism causes certain views and philosophies to come about and thus atheists are statistically more likely to hold certain views.

However, there is nothing "required" of an atheist beyond lack of belief in god(s) (which is just the definition of atheism...). It seems a silly question though. Of course there is nothing required of atheism beyond the definition of atheism...just like there's nothing "required" of a Christian beyond the definition of Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

As far as your view of scientism is concerned, I agree with you, although Rosenberg's argument for how scientism plays a role in his brand of atheism is a little more complex than what we are discussing here. With that said, I won't belabor Rosenberg's tangent since your OP is focusing just on atheism as an isolated concept.

Essentially, I understand your view on atheism; I 'get' it. Atheism isn't itself a worldview. Rather, it is an aspect of one's perceptions about the world, and an atheist's sense of 'meaning' in the world may or may not be affected by his atheism. It seems that we can definitely speak of the existence of varying kinds, degrees, or nuances of 'atheism.'

 

[pyramid33]

Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?

There is less.