Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?

[quatona]

Baloney. If you didn't think your car would start, you wouldn't bother putting the key in the ignition.

Don´t tell me what I do and why. Try to speak for yourself, ok?
The thought that the car might (or might not) start is completely sufficient to put in the key and turn it. Of course, one can be more or less optimistic about it. I have had cars where the chance of successfully starting them was less than 50:50.

As the Christian life is lived, putting your key in the ignition to start the car is an act of faith. That's simply what the concept conveys. Note that this concept is bigger than the definition of the word "faith." I realize this is not how an atheist uses words, so its sort of like a lesson on shades of blue to Helen Keller.

Well, trying to start my car at least doesn t require me to take its existence on faith. So much for the first fundamental difference.

Bottom line: if you're wanting to be understood as an atheist, or even just respected, you're up against a LOT more than merely defining the word atheist as meaning not believing in God or gods and nothing more.

I do not really care much for what you attach to the term "atheist", or even the term itself. I don´t believe in God(s), that´s all it´s meant to be short for when I use it. If I wanted to be understood or respected "as an atheist" that´s all that needs to be understood and/or respected.

You have a whole world view that is "other," and therefore inherently scary to a lot of weaker folk.

Huh, do I scare you?
Of course I have a whole world view - but it´s not "atheism". And, yes, I personally take quite a few things on faith - but my car starting isn´t one of them.
My world view is "other" only to those who don´t ask me about my world view (but instead prefer me to make assumptions and/or tell me what my world view is).
If you are interested in my world view don´t get hung up on "atheism". It´s an insignificant part of it.

Digging in your heels and being adamant about how a single word is used won't promote understanding.

Well, I wasn´t the one who brought up the term "faith" and tried to define it into meaninglessness.

Covering a reasonable definition of "atheist" is still a good start.

Now, you already know what I mean when I label myself "atheist". The fact that you prefer a different definition of the word doesn´t affect my position. At worst, it might prompt me to abstain from calling myself "atheist" when you are around - just so that you aren´t tempted to superimpose your concepts upon my words.

A next step might be that although everyone has a world view and an atheist's will of course differ from a Christian's, there is no codified atheistic world view, and there aren't even denominations.

Agreed - except that there isn´t an "atheistic world view" at all. "Atheism" just tells you that no form of theism shapes my world view. If we´d start to call world views after all those things we don´t believe in, that would be a terrible mess.
What, however, I think would be a great step towards understanding: you realize that my atheism isn´t as important to me as your Christianity is to you.

This easily breaks down to individuals, on either side of the aisle. (Meaning most Christians even within a given denom will still hold their own thoughts and opinions, and can become common ground)

Exactly. Even to the point that the relevant and effective parts of their world views can be closer between an atheist and a Christian than between two Christians and two atheists.

 

[quatona]

You doing ok, quatona?

Not really, I notice a growing impatience.

 

[Received]

Not really, I notice a growing impatience.

Cheer up! The new Neil Young came out yesterday!

 

[Huntun]

I agree with Ana. There is no more to the atheist belief system than "there is no God". By their estimation, they do not have to prove their belief, even as they demand that Christians prove their beliefs.

Not necessarily "there is no God" but rather lack of belief in God. Some atheists are agnostic atheists.

 

[theophilus777]

trying to start my car at least doesn t require me to take its existence on faith. So much for the first fundamental difference.

While this is a valid statement, it still bypasses the point I made rather than dealing with it, and it still uses the same word "faith" in a completely different and foreign way from how pretty much any Christian you might come across actually uses it as they live their daily life, and any sentence like this will still be at least jarring to most any Christian you might attempt to converse with, or else it will be misunderstood altogether.

If you prefer to ignore all that and proceed full steam ahead, that is your right.

I do not really care much for what you attach to the term "atheist", or even the term itself.

And here you have gone full circle in the cycle of projecting on to what I did say, whatever preconceived notions you have. Likely those are based on other religious type folk you've interacted with, but is entirely foreign to my words and thoughts.

I only posted in this thread to try to illustrate this point, so I think I'm done here. (Even though I don't think its nearly as clear as I had originally hoped)

What, however, I think would be a great step towards understanding: you realize that my atheism isn´t as important to me as your Christianity is to you.

Despite the above problems, this seems to be a productive statement. Lots of discussions I've seen, both here and elsewhere, that have reached an impasse, could be improved by using this idea.

Even to the point that the relevant and effective parts of their world views can be closer between an atheist and a Christian than between two Christians and two atheists.

Currently I don't think that's possible, if my brief participation on this website is to influence my thinking at all.

 

[quatona]

While this is a valid statement, it still bypasses the point I made rather than dealing with it, and it still uses the same word "faith" in a completely different and foreign way from how pretty much any Christian you might come across actually uses it as they live their daily life, and any sentence like this will still be at least jarring to most any Christian you might attempt to converse with, or else it will be misunderstood altogether.

Ok, then explain to me how - by your Christian understanding - I take the existence of my car on faith.

If you prefer to ignore all that and proceed full steam ahead, that is your right.

That´s very generous of you. I wasn´t even aware that you were the guy giving out the rights here.
I´ll return the favour and declare that you are in your full right to try to read my mind and motives.

And here you have gone full circle in the cycle of projecting on to what I did say, whatever preconceived notions you have. Likely those are based on other religious type folk you've interacted with, but is entirely foreign to my words and thoughts.

I only posted in this thread to try to illustrate this point, so I think I'm done here. (Even though I don't think its nearly as clear as I had originally hoped)

Ok, apparently there has been a misunderstanding?

Despite the above problems, this seems to be a productive statement. Lots of discussions I've seen, both here and elsewhere, that have reached an impasse, could be improved by using this idea.

Fair enough.

Currently I don't think that's possible, if my brief participation on this website is to influence my thinking at all.

Well, I wasn´t thinking of you (or any other person here) in particular when I made that statement.

 

[Texas Ranger]

Cheer up! The new Neil Young came out yesterday!

That old goat has another record out? A southern man don't need him around.

 

[theophilus777]

Ok, then explain to me how - by your Christian understanding - I take the existence of my car on faith.

This goes to my bigger point in that post, that your preconceived notion has caused you to miss what I said. (I never said you take the existence of your car on faith, nor does "take on faith" make any sense as a combination of words until you strip the word faith of all meaning)

My point bigger than that, is it's the same concern atheists seem to have, that by not realizing that atheism is simply the lack of belief in God or gods they are wrongly stereotyped, and further, not heard by Christians who listen to their own preconceived notions of what all atheists must be, rather than the actual person they're interacting with.

So the problem is all over the place, and does not serve us well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree with Ana.

Well said...best post so far. I didn't read the rest of it because when you start with this sentence, you can only go downhill from there.

 

[Ken-1122]

No one said they existed independently, what I said is that values are physical in nature. That they are properties derived from the process of living.

Is independent existence necessary for physical existence?

What of things that exist as relationships within systems? Are they non-physical?

My own physical process of thinking in and of itself won't exist when my physical body is gone, and will never exist independent of me, this doesn't make it a non-physical thing.

I think you are hung up on the idea that physical things need to be solid objective and independent, I don't believe these are correct definitions.

Anything that has an effect in a physical system is part of it in my opinion.

So if the existence of Santa Clause is a part of my own physical process of thinking; even though he doesn't exist independent of myself, is it fair to say Santa Clause has a physical existence because he has an effect in a physical system?

Ken

 

[variant]

So if the existence of Santa Clause is a part of my own physical process of thinking; even though he doesn't exist independent of myself, is it fair to say Santa Clause has a physical existence because he has an effect in a physical system?

Ken

Yes the idea of Santa Clause has some physical existence.

I am proposing that ideas aren't made of something fundamentally different than other things.

They may have very different properties though.

 

[Received]

That old goat has another record out? A southern man don't need him around.

Yeah, but he's now an old man who looks at my life and realizes I'm not a lot like he was.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Yeah, but he's now an old man who looks at my life and realizes I'm not a lot like he was.

LOL. He and Joni are two of the greatest.

Is his new album online anywhere?

 

[Received]

LOL. He and Joni are two of the greatest.

Is his new album online anywhere?

I'm behind on Joni! (I know, I'm a wretched human being.)

You can find it on Spotify. Or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhhgU3hOm1A

 

[Received]

Tell me what you think! It's out there with the sound quality (lots of people don't like it, but I think it adds a unique ambiance.)

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes the idea of Santa Clause has some physical existence.

I am proposing that ideas aren't made of something fundamentally different than other things.

They may have very different properties though.

I guess we just have different definitions of "physical existence". My definition (also the dictionary definition) is anything material, your's can include just about anything.

Ken

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I'm behind on Joni! (I know, I'm a wretched human being.)

You can find it on Spotify. Or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhhgU3hOm1A

Thanks!

I'll check it out.

 

[variant]

I guess we just have different definitions of "physical existence". My definition (also the dictionary definition) is anything material, your's can include just about anything.

Ken

We don't really.

I just think everything is made out of material.

I don't see a great distinction between things that are material themselves (rocks) and things that are an integral part of material that is processing in a living system (ideas).

I think the distinction between these things comes from our experiencing them differently rather than them being fundamentally different.

 

[Chany]

I think everything is made out of material.

Are you referring to the physical state of our brains when we think of a concept or what?

 

[variant]

Are you referring to the physical state of our brains when we think of a concept or what?

I think concepts are made, and maintained through material processes.

Thus they are physical/material processes.