Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?

[Chany]

Atheist is not the lack of belief in God. It involves an thought out decision you've made that there is no God. An atheist actively rejects the notion that God exists.

They are trying very hard to run away from that definition though.

At it's core, atheism is that definition. Many atheists have thought it over, but some didn't. Some atheists are atheists for rather poor reasons or haven't really thought it out. A better definition is, "the rejection of god claims that have not met their burden of proof." An atheist may make strong positive claims, but, at it's core, atheism is the null position, so, ultimately, the burden of proof is on another to support their god claims.

There are different levels of atheism, from a very tentative "I see no evidence of a deity, therefore I withhold belief until that evidence" to "the deity you describe is nonsensical, and is foolish to believe in".

For example, if you describe god in the pantheistic or deistic sense, I would say, "I find insufficient evidence for the claims, therefore I withhold belief and reject the claim as fact until a better argument and better evidence is presented." If we are talking about the orthodox views of the Abrahamic religions, however, I would say "there is not only insufficient evidence, but a lot of evidence to the contrary for it's existence. It is, in some cases, contradictory and impossible."

 

[Davian]

Atheist is not the lack of belief in God. It involves an thought out decision you've made that there is no God. An atheist actively rejects the notion that God exists.

They are trying very hard to run away from that definition though.

If I told you your thoughts, and was wrong, would I be wrong?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheist is not the lack of belief in God.

Yes, it is. If one is an atheist, one's worldview is godless, which is to say lacking in god beliefs. Atheism isn't so much of a stance on religion as it is a belief-status, in this case indicating a lack of a certain kind of belief.

It involves an thought out decision you've made that there is no God. An atheist actively rejects the notion that God exists.

No, even if you were to find a remote island somewhere with tribal people who have no concept of gods or goddesses, and who were unaware that any such ideas existed elsewhere, those would be atheists.

They are trying very hard to run away from that definition though.

We like to run away from error.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Senator Cheese]

No, it doesn't. It is a conclusion, not a presupposition.

Is this relevant to the topic?

Wrong. Are you claiming that there is no evidence altruistic behaviour exists or no good nontheist arguments for it? That would be rather inadvisable.

The latter.

Your misunderstanding of atheism is quite clear.

You seem to do a very good job of furthering my understanding. Not.

I will bet I can list a lot of things you don’t believe because you feel there is no reason to believe, or because there is no evidence; does this mean you have a naturalist worldview?

No. I will believe in some things although there is no evidence. As such, I will believe in an inherent moral code and teleological justice.

Atheists (at least those who reason "I don't believe due to lack of evidence") will reject any concept that isn't based on reproducable evidence. Either that, or they should admit to be as "irrational" as they claim religious folk to be. In short, there are two types of legitimate atheism:

(A) Atheists who do not believe in God but believe in, for example, deontological morals and ethics. These should admit that their moral conceptions lack as much evidence as the belief in a higher deity (and therefore, their own rejection of God on the basis of the lack of evidence is not "better" or "more rational" than faith). Anything else would be hipocrisy.

(B) Atheists who do not believe in God and coherently reject any notion for which there is no evidence. That includes but is not limited to a moral system, the inherent value of altruistic behavior, etc. This concept is certainly coherent, and yet repugnant at the same time. I don't know many Atheists who follow this path, even though it would be coherent.

In short, most atheists are of category (A), which is very nice. What's not very nice is that they often speak from a position of alleged intellectual or pseudoscientific authority - a position they would only hold if they belonged to group (B).

Who “markets” atheism?

In Germany, I would say that a vocal minority advocates the banning of religion (as it was proposed in East Germany during the communist rule). They argue that it's irrational and has caused many wars.
Obviously I reject this argument on a personal basis - objectively, I also advocate that anyone who has fought wars in the name of Jesus Christ has not taken Christ too serious but not serious enough. And as for faith being irrational - well, as I demonstrated above, any atheist that still believes that actions can be deemed "morally good" or "morally bad" is as irrational as any man of faith by his own standards.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is this relevant to the topic?


The latter.


You seem to do a very good job of furthering my understanding. Not.


No. I will believe in some things although there is no evidence. As such, I will believe in an inherent moral code and teleological justice.

Atheists (at least those who reason "I don't believe due to lack of evidence") will reject any concept that isn't based on reproducable evidence. Either that, or they should admit to be as "irrational" as they claim religious folk to be. In short, there are two types of legitimate atheism:

(A) Atheists who do not believe in God but believe in, for example, deontological morals and ethics. These should admit that their moral conceptions lack as much evidence as the belief in a higher deity (and therefore, their own rejection of God on the basis of the lack of evidence is not "better" or "more rational" than faith). Anything else would be hipocrisy.

(B) Atheists who do not believe in God and coherently reject any notion for which there is no evidence. That includes but is not limited to a moral system, the inherent value of altruistic behavior, etc. This concept is certainly coherent, and yet repugnant at the same time. I don't know many Atheists who follow this path, even though it would be coherent.

In short, most atheists are of category (A), which is very nice. What's not very nice is that they often speak from a position of alleged intellectual or pseudoscientific authority - a position they would only hold if they belonged to group (B).



In Germany, I would say that a vocal minority advocates the banning of religion (as it was proposed in East Germany during the communist rule). They argue that it's irrational and has caused many wars.
Obviously I reject this argument on a personal basis - objectively, I also advocate that anyone who has fought wars in the name of Jesus Christ has not taken Christ too serious but not serious enough. And as for faith being irrational - well, as I demonstrated above, any atheist that still believes that actions can be deemed "morally good" or "morally bad" is as irrational as any man of faith by his own standards.

Why would labelling something morally good or morally bad be irrational "by my own standards"? Especially if it's by my own standards that I label something morally good or morally bad.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Why would labelling something morally good or morally bad be irrational "by my own standards"? Especially if it's by my own standards that I label something morally good or morally bad.

Irrational in the sense that you are attributing any action with a parameter for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence of its existence. From a naturalist point of view, there is no right or wrong - just as there is no God.

Alas, belief in any type of moral value to any action could be argued away as "wishful thinking" or plain out "fantasy" - just as the belief in a higher deity is argued away.

In conclusion, if one believes in "good" or "bad", then one shouldn't look down upon the faith of others or deem it "irrational". http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm

 

[Received]

If it's implicit, how do you actually know they are doing this? This is why I am asking you for concrete evidence. If you don't have this then you are doing nothing more than speculating.

And I would also call that rather silly, no matter how much time you have frittered on formulating that view.

I don't, precisely because it's implicit. And me not knowing doesn't mean the opposite claim is true; it points out the inherent epistemic difficulties of having a term that stands for not believing in something that's treated by a lot of its adherents as if it also involves believing in something else as well along with it. You simply *can't* falsify an atheist who acts as if atheism is more than just not believing in something, because every time you try to point out the inconsistency, the atheist can be like, "nuh-uh, atheism means not believing in deities," while he continues to act as if atheism and rationalism (or whateverism) are intricately tied together.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. I will believe in some things although there is no evidence. As such, I will believe in an inherent moral code and teleological justice.

That is not what I said! I said I can list things you don’t believe because you feel there is no reason to believe or because there is no evidence. Do you agree? If so; does this mean YOU have a naturalist worldview? (please respond to that, not something else)

Atheists (at least those who reason "I don't believe due to lack of evidence") will reject any concept that isn't based on reproducable evidence. Either that, or they should admit to be as "irrational" as they claim religious folk to be. In short, there are two types of legitimate atheism:

Untrue! Many God beliefs are rejected because there appears to be more evidence indicating God does NOT exist verses the amount of evidence indicating that he does.

(A) Atheists who do not believe in God but believe in, for example, deontological morals and ethics. These should admit that their moral conceptions lack as much evidence as the belief in a higher deity (and therefore, their own rejection of God on the basis of the lack of evidence is not "better" or "more rational" than faith). Anything else would be hipocrisy.

Deontological morals and ethics (as you call them) only exist as value judgments, they do not have an actual existence; they come into being via value judgments. In other words; they only exist in your head. Now if you wish to equate God’s existence this way, in other words if you are claiming God only exists in your head; that he is merely a figment of your imagination; then I will grant you that, and you will be hard pressed to find an atheist who will not.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Irrational in the sense that you are attributing any action with a parameter for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence of its existence. From a naturalist point of view, there is no right or wrong - just as there is no God.

Alas, belief in any type of moral value to any action could be argued away as "wishful thinking" or plain out "fantasy" - just as the belief in a higher deity is argued away.

In conclusion, if one believes in "good" or "bad", then one shouldn't look down upon the faith of others or deem it "irrational". Matthew 7:5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Good and bad only exist as value judgments; they do not have an actual existence; they only exist in your head. Science does not deal with value judgments, they deal with that which has an actual existence. People of faith claim their God is more than something that only exist in their heads.

Ken

 

[Huntun]

Good and bad only exist as value judgments

Exactly. Humans bring the correlative categories of "good" and "evil" into existence by making value judgements. Nothing is actually good and evil in and of itself / apart from human* valuation.


*unless maybe there is another type of sentient being with sufficiently advanced and similar mental faculties who can also make said judgements.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good and bad only exist as value judgments; they do not have an actual existence; they only exist in your head. Science does not deal with value judgments, they deal with that which has an actual existence.

The judgments themselves don't exist outside of one's head, but the referents that those judgments are about do. If value judgments are about something, they may be about something that has an actual existence.

Anyway, here is an example where atheists disagree on an issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Senator Cheese]

Good and bad only exist as value judgments; they do not have an actual existence; they only exist in your head. Science does not deal with value judgments, they deal with that which has an actual existence. People of faith claim their God is more than something that only exist in their heads.

Deontological morals and ethics (as you call them) only exist as value judgments, they do not have an actual existence; they come into being via value judgments. In other words; they only exist in your head. Now if you wish to equate God’s existence this way, in other words if you are claiming God only exists in your head; that he is merely a figment of your imagination; then I will grant you that, and you will be hard pressed to find an atheist who will not.

Exactly. Humans bring the correlative categories of "good" and "evil" into existence by making value judgements. Nothing is actually good and evil in and of itself / apart from human* valuation.

So, in essence, you're saying that any action does not have a moral value - the fact that some humans deem murder or rape to be "bad" is thus reduced to the mere result of social evolution.

That would place you in the (B) category I outlined. You are very coherent in the sense that you reject all things for which there is no evidence. Then again, you're also saying that rape and murder aren't bad but just "valued" bad by some people.

Interestingly, I think you'd choose not to rape a hot 18-year-old even if you'd knew you'd get away with it. Why? Wouldn't it be irrational to listen to that pesky guilty conscience? After all, it's as much of an evolutionary vestigium as that belief in God!

 

[babylonisfalling]

As I said, atheists have been running from that correct definition for a long time now

 

[Eudaimonist]

As I said, atheists have been running from that incorrect definition for a long time now

I fixed your typo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chany]

So, in essence, you're saying that any action does not have a moral value - the fact that some humans deem murder or rape to be "bad" is thus reduced to the mere result of social evolution.

That would place you in the (B) category I outlined. You are very coherent in the sense that you reject all things for which there is no evidence. Then again, you're also saying that rape and murder aren't bad but just "valued" bad by some people.

Interestingly, I think you'd choose not to rape a hot 18-year-old even if you'd knew you'd get away with it. Why? Wouldn't it be irrational to listen to that pesky guilty conscience? After all, it's as much of an evolutionary vestigium as that belief in God!

I would like to congratulate you, as you are one of the major reasons I'm going to write a treatise on secular morality.

 

[Senator Cheese]

I would like to congratulate you, as you are one of the major reasons I'm going to write a treatise on secular morality.

I am not very good in English.
Does "treatise" mean the same as "treaty"?

Also, please note that I did not say that secular morality doesn't exist. I just said that having a moral belief is as "irrational" as having a belief in God - alas, this type of Atheism is not superior to faith, although Atheists commonly believe they are.

 

[Chany]

I am not very good in English.
Does "treatise" mean the same as "treaty"?

Also, please note that I did not say that secular morality doesn't exist. I just said that having a moral belief is as "irrational" as having a belief in God - alas, this type of Atheism is not superior to faith, although Atheists commonly believe they are.

A treatise is a written systematic and thorough exploration of a topic.

Your point is flawed. To be short, you automatically jump to the "why" of morality and do not start at the foundational "what". Also, empathy's origins does not change it's existence. You also treat empathy as a evolutionary flaw, when it's not, at least within highly social species.

 

[quatona]

Interestingly, I think you'd choose not to rape a hot 18-year-old even if you'd knew you'd get away with it. Why? Wouldn't it be irrational to listen to that pesky guilty conscience? After all, it's as much of an evolutionary vestigium as that belief in God!

For whatever reason, you are assuming that it is this "pesky guilty conscience" that would keep me from doing it.

 

[quatona]

Also, please note that I did not say that secular morality doesn't exist. I just said that having a moral belief is as "irrational" as having a belief in God - alas, this type of Atheism is not superior to faith, although Atheists commonly believe they are.

There´s a huge difference, though: As opposed to believers in gods I don´t externalize my "moral beliefs" and/or project them onto deities; I´m fully aware that my morality isn´t out there but a product of my brain, mind, considerations, feelings. So there´s no comparison in terms of "irrationality".

 

[Senator Cheese]

A treatise is a written systematic and thorough exploration of a topic.

Your point is flawed. To be short, you automatically jump to the "why" of morality and do not start at the foundational "what". Also, empathy's origins does not change it's existence. You also treat empathy as a evolutionary flaw, when it's not, at least within highly social species.

Ah, thank you for the explanation.

The origin of feelings of compassion or empathy (from which, according to evolutionary sociology, morality arises) are very important because the notion that these (and other) emotions are rudimentary mean that it may be beneficial to ignore these feelings.

Fear, for example, is an emotion we will both agree to be of evolutionary origin, initially thought to protect us from environmental hazards. And yet, we sometimes conquer fear for benefit (e.g. riding one of those insane roller coasters or kissing the girl of your dreams even though she's way out of your league). In other words, if we believe that feelings are simply intrinsically "generated" as a result of some odd evolutionary process, then we may be prone to ignore these feelings and act upon other stimuli. While this may be nice when you're getting in that roller coaster and screaming your lungs off (ignoring/overcoming fear), it's most certainly not so nice when you decide to scam a poor shmuck off his savings for a bit of profit (ignoring/"overcoming" compassion/guilt).

For whatever reason, you are assuming that it is this "pesky guilty conscience" that would keep me from doing it.

What is it then? The thought "I don't want anyone to rape me, so I won't rape them!"? That's quite irrational, after all, in this hypothetical scenario, you could just slit the girl's throat afterwards. No witnesses, no harm to the social order done. But that still wouldn't make it okay, would it?

There´s a huge difference, though: As opposed to believers in gods I don´t externalize my "moral beliefs" and/or project them onto deities; I´m fully aware that my morality isn´t out there but a product of my brain, mind, considerations, feelings. So there´s no comparison in terms of "irrationality".

For one, you're misrepresenting faith-based morality: believers aren't projecting their morality into God, but accepting God's morality as a universal standard. (Although, to be fair, this point is minor and irrelevant to the discussion at hand).

You might be aware that your feelings of compassion, guilt or conscience are just figments of your imagination/brain - so far, you're still rational.
The moment that you're acting on these imaginations and letting benefit slip, you're being irrational.
That is, of course, going by the naturalist definition of "rationality".

I find it quite interesting to see Atheists getting defensive when all that I'm saying is that they are equally irrational as the faithful are. And therein lies the root of the problem of "misconceiving atheism" - oftentimes, one has the feeling that Atheism is defined less by the lack of belief in God and more by the supposed superiority of "believing only for what there is evidence" (while not even being coherent enough to then throw morals overboard).