Two Honest Atheists and a Confused one ... had a Chat!

[Occams Barber]

I'd say Philo's approach here is important and perceptive.

I'd say Philo is tilting at windmills.

Self-identifying atheists of today are by and large an entrenched camp.

I have no idea what you mean by "entrenched camp".

It is quite rare to see them disagree with one another (which is why this post was so refreshing). It's odd to see a prominent group with so little in-fighting. Granted, the level of in-fighting amongst Christians is usually leveraged as an argument against Christianity.

It's hardly surprising that you rarely see atheist disagreement since there's very little for atheists to disagree about. As a non-faith there are no atheist doctrines or dogmas or teachings. No sets of rules or sacred tradition or ritual. No denominations or cults or lists of sins. No theological debates. Atheism encompasses once concept - the absence of a belief in God(s). Given the dearth of issues to argue about and the relatively low numbers of atheists you would expect public argument to be rare. Unlike Christianity, an atheist belief has little bearing on day-to-day life.

Where we will differ is on the issue of 'absence of proof" or "proof of absence", which is exactly what the video is about. It's entirely unsurprising that an atheist who claims there is no god is asked for proof. The issue of proof is central to atheism and if a 'no god' argument actually exists we'd all like to hear it. In this case the caller had obviously not thought his 'no proof' arguments through and deserved to be challenged.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd say Philo is tilting at windmills.OB

I think you have me confused with the wrong fictional character, OB! I'm actually tilting more at anti-christs, so as silly as it may sound, I'd ask you avoid to any further conflation of my personal Ghost Rider style delusion(S) with your cheap, Don Quixote insinuations. Thank you!

More importantly, and my delusions aside, atheists are never just atheists, but it seems rare that they actually come to the fore and argue with each other about other important things like politics and demonstrate the fact that they are more than just atheists. Or do they?

 

[zippy2006]

It's hardly surprising that you rarely see atheist disagreement since there's very little for atheists to disagree about.

Of course this is the reply that I anticipated. I will only note that both historically and academically, this is not the case. For example, historically the atheism of men like Proudhon, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and Marx all varied in ways that sometimes contradicted one another. Academically we have seen various criticisms of, say, Dawkins from fellow atheists (e.g. Michael Ruse).

So no, prominent atheists have and do disagree, despite the fact that those on the front lines never do. It's a strong example of groupthink.

 

[Silmarien]

It's hardly surprising that you rarely see atheist disagreement since there's very little for atheists to disagree about. As a non-faith there are no atheist doctrines or dogmas or teachings. No sets of rules or sacred tradition or ritual. No denominations or cults or lists of sins. No theological debates. Atheism encompasses once concept - the absence of a belief in God(s). Given the dearth of issues to argue about and the relatively low numbers of atheists you would expect public argument to be rare. Unlike Christianity, an atheist belief has little bearing on day-to-day life.

You should spend more time with the progressive left if you think there are no denominations or cults or lists of sins for atheists.

Also, you make atheists sound like they have no opinions about anything whatsoever beside the existence of God, and that they all have the same exact reasons for arriving at their non-belief, and thus no disagreements about anything could ever arise. Kind of creepy.

 

[Occams Barber]

Also, you make atheists sound like they have no opinions about anything whatsoever beside the existence of God, and that they all have the same exact reasons for arriving at their non-belief, and thus no disagreements about anything could ever arise. Kind of creepy.

You're being a little disingenuous Sil. It was obvious from the context (see Quote below) that I was talking about the absence of dogma, doctrine etc. to disagree on.

Your "Also, you make atheists sound like they have no opinions..." makes it clear that you understood what I meant.

It's hardly surprising that you rarely see atheist disagreement since there's very little for atheists to disagree about. As a non-faith there are no atheist doctrines or dogmas or teachings. No sets of rules or sacred tradition or ritual. No denominations or cults or lists of sins. No theological debates. Atheism encompasses once concept - the absence of a belief in God(s).

OB

 

[zippy2006]

Also, you make atheists sound like they have no opinions about anything whatsoever beside the existence of God, and that they all have the same exact reasons for arriving at their non-belief, and thus no disagreements about anything could ever arise. Kind of creepy.

Other strange ideas in that same collection:

1. An atheist's atheism is wholly unconnected to the other propositions they hold and to their worldview in general
2. Atheists all object to the same doctrine of God, despite the fact that believers do not subscribe to the same doctrine of God

Atheism has always been taken to be a negative term, a rejection of some form of religious belief. It is therefore easy to see that if a religious creed deeply influences the beliefs and worldview of the believer, then the rejection of that creed would have a inverse effect on the beliefs and worldview of the atheist. Further, since the core beliefs within and between religions vary so greatly--even with respect to their doctrine of God--it necessarily follows that the rejection of two different sets of beliefs will entail two different sets of mirror-propositions (i.e. two different kinds of atheism). The falsity of 1 & 2 was just common sense to the intellectual atheists of history.

Granted, we must admit that the commonplace 'new atheism' we see today is basically a rejection of Evangelical Christianity or 'fundamentalism.' It is a very specific rejection that is improperly generalized by the atheist.

 

[Occams Barber]

An atheist's atheism is wholly unconnected to the other propositions they hold and to their worldview in general

Of course there is going to be some connection between atheism and an individual's worldview. This doesn't mean that any two atheists will have a similar worldview apart from atheism. To use an obvious example: it is quite possible to be an atheist and not accept the idea of evolution. Atheism is not essential for a particular worldview apart from the view that gods don't exist.

Atheists all object to the same doctrine of God, despite the fact that believers do not subscribe to the same doctrine of God

Atheism has nothing to do with the doctrine of a god. It's a position related to the existence of gods (plural). I may not believe that your particular God exists but I may broadly accept it's teachings.
OB

 

[zippy2006]

Of course there is going to be some connection between atheism and an individual's worldview. This doesn't mean that any two atheists will have a similar worldview apart from atheism. To use an obvious example: it is quite possible to be an atheist and not accept the idea of evolution. Atheism is not essential for a particular worldview apart from the view that gods don't exist.

Atheism is like a plant in a garden. It will affect the soil, vegetation, air, and insects in a particular way, but it will not determine every aspect of the garden. (Of course, for some it is a more central plant and for some it is more peripheral.)

Atheism has nothing to do with the doctrine of a god. It's a position related to the existence of gods (plural).

When you reject the existence of something you also reject the particular kind of nature that such a thing purportedly has. Beyond that you are committing the central equivocation of the New Atheists. You think you can talk about "gods" and be talking about a simple rational species. It is simply evidence of a general lack of familiarity with religion.

If religion is not a purely speculative science, then neither is atheism.

 

[Silmarien]

You're being a little disingenuous Sil. It was obvious from the context (see Quote below) that I was talking about the absence of dogma, doctrine etc. to disagree on.

You're "Also, you make atheists sound like they have no opinions..." makes it clear that you understood what I meant.

Yeah, it's strange to suggest that atheists wouldn't have anything to disagree with simply because they don't have religious dogma. You don't need religious dogma to think that Jesus Mythicism is absurd, but very few atheists around here get involved in those arguments.

Not that I blame them, necessarily, since those arguments tend to get surreal. I've seen atheists complain from time to time in threads where one Christian is acting like a lunatic and nobody else wants to step in and correct their off the walls theology. It's not because everyone agrees--I suspect they just aren't interested in the inevitable headache, and assume that atheists are similarly not motivated to step in and call out craziness from other atheists.

Granted, we must admit that the commonplace 'new atheism' we see today is basically a rejection of Evangelical Christianity or 'fundamentalism.' It is a very specific rejection that is improperly generalized by the atheist.

Hmm. I think it's more than merely Evangelicalism that's being rejected, even with the New Atheists. Closer to Evangelicalism + deism broadly, I'd suggest.

 

[Occams Barber]

Atheism is like a plant in a garden. It will affect the soil, vegetation, air, and insects in a particular way, but it will not determine every aspect of the garden. (Of course, for some it is a more central plant and for some it is more peripheral.)

I repeat: Atheism is not essential for a particular worldview apart from the view that gods don't exist.

When you reject the existence of something you also reject the particular kind of nature that such a thing purportedly has.

While gods don't exist, religions do exist. It's quite possible to not accept the existence of the central character but still accept the teachings of a religion. As an example my worldview is probably different to that of an atheist in a predominantly Hindu country. This has a lot to do with the link between culture and religion.

Beyond that you are committing the central equivocation of the New Atheists. You think you can talk about "gods" and be talking about a simple rational species. It is simply evidence of a general lack of familiarity with religion.

To not believe in gods doesn't require a detailed knowledge of specific religions. There is no reasonable proof of the existence of supernatural entities therefore there is no reason to assume any gods exist. Even you reject the existence of all gods apart from your own favourite deity.

If religion is not a purely speculative science, then neither is atheism.

I don't see either as speculative science. I do see it as rational to not assume a god exists in the absence of evidence.

OB

 

[Silmarien]

To not believe in gods doesn't require a detailed knowledge of specific religions. There is no reasonable proof of the existence of supernatural entities therefore there is no reason to assume any gods exist. Even you reject the existence of all gods apart from your own favourite deity.

You've kind of proved his point with this. You can't tell a classical theist that they reject the existence of all gods apart from their own without demonstrating in the process that you have no idea whatsoever what they actually believe.

Also, this is a really silly thing to just assume. Christians can believe in the existence of lesser gods and demons. You just can't worship them.

 

[Occams Barber]

You've kind of proved his point with this. You can't tell a classical theist that they reject the existence of all gods apart from their own without demonstrating in the process that you have no idea whatsoever what they actually believe.

Also, this is a really silly thing to just assume. Christians can believe in the existence of lesser gods and demons. You just can't worship them.

If you want to argue that Christianity isn't really monotheistic you have my blessing. Given the Son, Father, Holy Spirit, Satan, archangels, angels, demons etc.etc. there is an interesting argument for Christianity as a religion of multiple godlike entities.

Since I'm no expert, I'm sticking with the standard triune god which Christians seem to prefer when discussing their religion.
OB

 

[Silmarien]

If you want to argue that Christianity isn't really monotheistic you have my blessing. Given the Son, Father, Holy Spirit, Satan, archangels, angels, demons etc.etc. there is an interesting argument for Christianity as a religion of multiple godlike entities.

Since I'm no expert, I'm sticking with the standard triune god which Christians seem to prefer when discussing their religion.
OB

No, Christianity is definitely monotheistic in the metaphysical sense. There is one sole First Principle, Ultimate Reality, Source of Existence, or however you want to describe it, who is Triune. That's not really a separate "entity" than the God of Judaism, the God of Islam, various forms of philosophical theism, and even something like Brahman in the major forms of Hinduism.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not polytheistic godlike entities in the same way that angels and demons would be--the distinction between Uncreated and Created existence remains. But that's the case for other religions as well. Even Greek paganism tended to have a somewhat similar framework at the end, since the Neoplatonists had developed the notion of the One, a divine source of reality beyond the pagan gods themselves. This seems to be a pretty normal trend, since it happened in the Vedic tradition as well.

The problem with saying that someone accepts one god and rejects other gods is that it's a claim based on ignorance of what is actually going on in religious traditions. In that Neoplatonists or Hindus believe in an ultimate divine source of reality, I share that belief. I don't reject it.

 

[zippy2006]

I repeat: Atheism is not essential for a particular worldview apart from the view that gods don't exist.

Atheism need not be essential to a particular worldview in order for atheism to have determinate characteristics. You can have a similar-looking garden without atheism, but that doesn't mean that atheism, when present, doesn't affect the garden. You're committing a subtle fallacy here. Just because I am allowed to substitute olive oil for butter in a certain recipe does not mean that butter has no determinate characteristics, or that it will taste the same.

While gods don't exist, religions do exist. It's quite possible to not accept the existence of the central character but still accept the teachings of a religion. As an example my worldview is probably different to that of an atheist in a predominantly Hindu country. This has a lot to do with the link between culture and religion.

What conclusion are you attempting to draw here? You seem to be leaning towards the idea that atheism doesn't matter because it doesn't affect anything.

To not believe in gods doesn't require a detailed knowledge of specific religions.

Of course it does, otherwise how would you know what you're not believing in?

Else we're hung up on words like "detailed." Granted, it is clear to me that many atheists really have no idea what they disbelieve, but without some notion or familiarity they would not even be capable of that blunder.

There is no reasonable proof of the existence of supernatural entities therefore there is no reason to assume any gods exist.

Since proofs terminate in conclusions rather than assumptions, I will assume you meant "conclude" rather than "assume." Easy mistake from a rhetorical hand.

But no, you're simply engaging in untenable a priori reasoning. I would encourage you to be more empirical. The only beliefs one is logically able to reject are those they have encountered in some form or another. There may be a species of aliens living in a distant corner of the universe who hold certain beliefs, but you are not able to disbelieve what they believe due to the fact that you have no exposure to the belief. You cannot disbelieve an idea that you do not know.

Even you reject the existence of all gods apart from your own favourite deity.

Silmarien answered this well.

I don't see either as speculative science. I do see it as rational to not assume a god exists in the absence of evidence.

No one assumes anything in the absence of evidence. That's just a truism.

Let's revisit your response to proposition 1:

Of course there is going to be some connection between atheism and an individual's worldview. This doesn't mean that any two atheists will have a similar worldview apart from atheism.

A correlate of this is that there will be some similarity of worldview in light of atheism, and it makes perfect sense for atheists to argue about certain things in that vein.

Take an example. Two atheists grow up in the West and are cognizant of the common religious moorings of morality in the culture. In seeking to develop a working model of morality, one comes to believe that morality is objective and one that it is subjective. They naturally get into a discussion about whether atheism is compatible with an objective morality. They're not both right. Some options include:

• Their "atheisms" are different: they reject different concepts of God or religion
• They do not have common definitions of "morality," "subjective," or "objective"
• One of them has made a mistake about the nature of the implication between atheism and morality