Wouldn't atheism be better, if it was multivalent?

[KCfromNC]

Well I agree that we share the experience of the material realm, I am just claiming that there is more to it than the material realm.

Assertions like this are easy. The tough part is providing any reason to believe you.

I wasn't patronizing you, but you clearly have a bit of a snarky attitude. And yes there is a ton of things we can do in the material realm. It is useful. But it is only appreciated through a mind.. a consciousness. Now to many atheists the mind is simply the firing of neurons, but wow how interesting it is to think about why consciousness exists.

It exists for the same reason all biological systems do - differential reproductive success in an environment with limited resources. Or maybe just drift. Either way, though, it isn't evidence of magic.

I can't give you any 100 percent scientific proof that God exists, I can only give you my personal testimony.

Will you accept my personal testimony that god is imaginary? If not, it is a bit hypocritical to expect others to accept yours.

Going back on topic, Do you disagree that atheism is strongly rooted in naturalism?

Yep. Lots of atheists reject naturalism.

 

[quatona]

Going back on topic, Do you disagree that atheism is strongly rooted in naturalism?

Yes, I for one disagree.

I don't know why people would take offense because of that assertion.

I don´t take offense from it - but when people make inaccurate statements about me, my opinions, my motives etc. I have an interest in clarifying their misconceptions.

 

[Cearbhall]

I can't give you any 100 percent scientific proof that God exists, I can only give you my personal testimony. There is only one experiment I know to prove God exists. It is a spiritual one. Call out to him, ask to have a relationship with him. Ask for a relationship with Jesus. God can tell if your heart is genuine when you do this. He knows if you will give up 5 minutes later or 5 months later. Read His Holy WORD.

Many atheists, including myself, have done this. I'm not sure why you're assuming we haven't. Many of us did actually think that we had a relationship with a higher being.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hi there,

So this is something of a curiosity to me: atheism adopts the opinion that "there is no god" but basically stops there. Now granted people take all sorts of tangents, pastafarianism for example, and there are many gods to which they object, but fundamentally atheism is not a multivalent approach to belief at all. By multivalent, I mean that it doesn't attempt to construct a belief system that accounts for multiple points of view, people don't say "I believe in the atheist way of life" they just say "I am an atheist". I understand that the latter is simpler, but the fact that the former is not present at all is rather spurious I think.

Atheists could easily adopt the attitude that "there is no God, the Universe cannot be interacted with from the outside, the future is at no point going to revolve around God, the Name of God itself will meet the same fate of entropy as everything else". These are atheist ideas that flesh out the nature of the atheism and give structure to the expectations and understandings of atheism, such that should they get in a debate, for example, they would have such beliefs to negotiate with and through and around. Otherwise you end up just revolving around the one concept that there is no god, which is not healthy.

The fallout from this is that atheists frequently obsess over religion and religious stupidity. In debates they frequently call religious people out for their unthinkingness and their lack of critical perspective, when this is completely unwarranted and unconstructive. If atheists actually had beliefs themselves, then it would be clear when they were thinking about the future, for example and not merely dwelling on the past failings of the human race to live a religion that is pure and unspotted. This actually leads to the idea that atheists are not merely unregenerate, but are objectionable and unkind and therefore ultimately lacking in knowledge, be it of themselves.

Call me crazy, but if atheists actually believed in atheism systematically, it could actually do some benefit. Intellectual rigour doesn't have to revolve around praising a God you can't see, so that your problems are projected onto a future you can deal with; instead, you can have ideas about the future and reasoned arguments about what your attitude will be once you reach that future. To my mind, there is nothing easier than talking about the hope I have in the future, but for atheists it seems as if they are scared of the work that will mean.

To be fair, multivalency opens up the possibility of disagreement. Not everyone will want to dwell on the entropy of the Universe, but that is rather the point. Ultimately, atheists think they "agree" on there being "no God" but if they can't even sustain a handful of beliefs that they agree on as well, how much could their agreement possibly be worth. I'm not saying it would be worth that much more if they did have multivalency, but at least you would know that it was worth something.

Life is too short, not to have believed something that made it possible to be aware of it ending.

The term Atheist was originated by theists. It was a pejorative term used to label those who rejected the Gods worshipped by the larger society. It was used to label all such people; not just those with a particular point of view.

Atheism - Ask.com Encyclopedia

Now there are terms like Humanist, freethinker, etc. that were coined by atheists that might indicate individual beliefs but you don’t have to be atheist to fit into those categories. Personally I don’t even think atheism should even be a word

Ken

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well I agree that we share the experience of the material realm, I am just claiming that there is more to it than the material realm. I wasn't patronizing you, but you clearly have a bit of a snarky attitude. And yes there is a ton of things we can do in the material realm. It is useful. But it is only appreciated through a mind.. a consciousness. Now to many atheists the mind is simply the firing of neurons, but wow how interesting it is to think about why consciousness exists.

I can't give you any 100 percent scientific proof that God exists, I can only give you my personal testimony. There is only one experiment I know to prove God exists. It is a spiritual one. Call out to him, ask to have a relationship with him. Ask for a relationship with Jesus. God can tell if your heart is genuine when you do this. He knows if you will give up 5 minutes later or 5 months later. Read His Holy WORD.

Going back on topic, Do you disagree that atheism is strongly rooted in naturalism? I don't know why people would take offense because of that assertion.

I came off snarky, you came off condescending, so let's start over.

I disagree. I'm atheist but I really know nothing of naturalism.

I've got a better idea. Why not just tell me of something metaphysical you've experienced? What it was and how you experienced it. A talking serpent...burning bush...whatever.

 

[JGG]

Hi there,

So this is something of a curiosity to me: atheism adopts the opinion that "there is no god" but basically stops there. Now granted people take all sorts of tangents, pastafarianism for example, and there are many gods to which they object, but fundamentally atheism is not a multivalent approach to belief at all. By multivalent, I mean that it doesn't attempt to construct a belief system that accounts for multiple points of view, people don't say "I believe in the atheist way of life" they just say "I am an atheist". I understand that the latter is simpler, but the fact that the former is not present at all is rather spurious I think.

Atheists could easily adopt the attitude that "there is no God, the Universe cannot be interacted with from the outside, the future is at no point going to revolve around God, the Name of God itself will meet the same fate of entropy as everything else". These are atheist ideas that flesh out the nature of the atheism and give structure to the expectations and understandings of atheism, such that should they get in a debate, for example, they would have such beliefs to negotiate with and through and around. Otherwise you end up just revolving around the one concept that there is no god, which is not healthy.

The fallout from this is that atheists frequently obsess over religion and religious stupidity. In debates they frequently call religious people out for their unthinkingness and their lack of critical perspective, when this is completely unwarranted and unconstructive. If atheists actually had beliefs themselves, then it would be clear when they were thinking about the future, for example and not merely dwelling on the past failings of the human race to live a religion that is pure and unspotted. This actually leads to the idea that atheists are not merely unregenerate, but are objectionable and unkind and therefore ultimately lacking in knowledge, be it of themselves.

Call me crazy, but if atheists actually believed in atheism systematically, it could actually do some benefit. Intellectual rigour doesn't have to revolve around praising a God you can't see, so that your problems are projected onto a future you can deal with; instead, you can have ideas about the future and reasoned arguments about what your attitude will be once you reach that future. To my mind, there is nothing easier than talking about the hope I have in the future, but for atheists it seems as if they are scared of the work that will mean.

To be fair, multivalency opens up the possibility of disagreement. Not everyone will want to dwell on the entropy of the Universe, but that is rather the point. Ultimately, atheists think they "agree" on there being "no God" but if they can't even sustain a handful of beliefs that they agree on as well, how much could their agreement possibly be worth. I'm not saying it would be worth that much more if they did have multivalency, but at least you would know that it was worth something.

Life is too short, not to have believed something that made it possible to be aware of it ending.

I don't agree that there is no god. I don't agree that there is one. I don't particularly care that others share my particular outlook. Only that people legitimately understand it before condemning it.

You seem to be under the impression that all groups should have their belief systems organized and dictated to them. Is that about right?

 

[Freodin]

There is only one experiment I know to prove God exists. It is a spiritual one. Call out to him, ask to have a relationship with him. Ask for a relationship with Jesus. God can tell if your heart is genuine when you do this. He knows if you will give up 5 minutes later or 5 months later.

Sorry, I cannot take this approach serious. I just cannot. What kind of an experiment is that. What kind of proof? You already have a build-in explanation for all kinds of failure!

How can such an experiment prove anything? Spiritually or materialistically?

 

[Gene2memE]

Scalpel out

Hi there,

So this is something of a curiosity to me: atheism adopts the opinion that "there is no god" but basically stops there.

Partially correct. You need to differentiate between two assertions here, one of knowledge and one of belief.

Theism addresses belief, specifically belief in a god or gods.

Agnosticism addresses knowledge ('knowledge that', rather than 'knowledge of', which is awarness of a concept).

Thus, you can have the following:

Theist gnostic - "I believe and I know that a god/gods exists"
Theist agnostic - "I believe a god exists, but I don't know if a god exists or not"
Atheist agnostic - "I don't believe a god exists, but I don't know if a god existis or not"
Atheist gnostic - "I don't believe and I know that no god/gods exists"

With theism, there are only two possibilities: either you believe, or you don't. Think about a jar of coins. There is either an even or an odd number of coins in the jar, just two possibilities.

The theist position is one of a positive claim, such as: "There is an even number of coins in the jar". This is analogous to the claims "There is a god/gods".

The atheist agnostic response is one of skepticism. The response is: "No evidence has been given to support the claim that there is an even number of coins, therefore I don't believe it".

Note that this is not a positive claim, as you have made in your opening sentence.

The atheist is not rejecting the possibility of there being an even number of coins ("A god existis"), nor are they asserting that there is an odd number of coins ("No god exisits"). All they are asserting is that the positive claim has not meet its burden of proof and been substantiated and thus they see no rational reason to believe it.

Now granted people take all sorts of tangents, pastafarianism for example, and there are many gods to which they object, but fundamentally atheism is not a multivalent approach to belief at all. By multivalent, I mean that it doesn't attempt to construct a belief system that accounts for multiple points of view, people don't say "I believe in the atheist way of life" they just say "I am an atheist". I understand that the latter is simpler, but the fact that the former is not present at all is rather spurious I think.

Correct. Atheism addresses a single claim - the claim that god or gods exists. This is all it addresses

Atheists could easily adopt the attitude that "there is no God, the Universe cannot be interacted with from the outside, the future is at no point going to revolve around God, the Name of God itself will meet the same fate of entropy as everything else".

Incorrect. These are not atheist ideas, as atheism is merely the rejection of the god claim(s)/

These are atheist ideas that flesh out the nature of the atheism and give structure to the expectations and understandings of atheism, such that should they get in a debate, for example, they would have such beliefs to negotiate with and through and around. Otherwise you end up just revolving around the one concept that there is no god, which is not healthy.

Incorrect. You're labouring under a fundamental misapprehension of what atheism is.

Atheism has no nature. It addresses a single claim (the number of coins is even/there is a god) and only that.

The fallout from this is that atheists frequently obsess over religion and religious stupidity.

If you reject the claim that a supernatural entity exists, why should you then put up with all the associated stupidity?

In debates they frequently call religious people out for their unthinkingness and their lack of critical perspective, when this is completely unwarranted and unconstructive.

Actually, it often is warrented and can be constructive. Never be absolutist in your statements

If atheists actually had beliefs themselves

Error! Atheists do have beliefs.

Being an atheist means you reject the god claim. It does not mean you cannont adopt particular outlooks on life, including belief sets.

Atheism is typically associated with skepticism, humanism and liberalism (not the US type, the Renaissance type), all of which have deep philosophical implications.

You could even be an atheist and adopt a Christian belief system, sans the supernatural stuff.

then it would be clear when they were thinking about the future, for example and not merely dwelling on the past failings of the human race to live a religion that is pure and unspotted. This actually leads to the idea that atheists are not merely unregenerate, but are objectionable and unkind and therefore ultimately lacking in knowledge, be it of themselves.

As Atheists have nothing to be repentant for, i'm not sure that being unregenerate is an issue.

Similarly, atheists don't solely dwell on the past failings of religion. It just that thery're kind of an easy target, particularly so when theists make fanciful and unsubstantitated claims about the past.

Being objectionable and unkind does not mean you can't be correct or posses knowledge, it just makes the pill a bitter one to swallow for some people

Call me crazy, but if atheists actually believed in atheism systematically, it could actually do some benefit.

Athesim is a rejection of a singlar claim. How do you believe in a negation? How do you form a systematic belief system from "I don't believe the number of coins is even, because you haven't proved it"?

Intellectual rigour doesn't have to revolve around praising a God you can't see, so that your problems are projected onto a future you can deal with; instead, you can have ideas about the future and reasoned arguments about what your attitude will be once you reach that future. To my mind, there is nothing easier than talking about the hope I have in the future, but for atheists it seems as if they are scared of the work that will mean.

To be fair, multivalency opens up the possibility of disagreement. Not everyone will want to dwell on the entropy of the Universe, but that is rather the point. Ultimately, atheists think they "agree" on there being "no God" but if they can't even sustain a handful of beliefs that they agree on as well, how much could their agreement possibly be worth. I'm not saying it would be worth that much more if they did have multivalency, but at least you would know that it was worth something.

Life is too short, not to have believed something that made it possible to be aware of it ending.

Look up the following:
Atheism plus
Secular humanism and the humanist manifesto
Renaissance humanism
Rational skepticism
Philosophical naturalism

Then come back to me and try to argue again that people who have taken the atheist position can't sustain a handful of beliefs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I cannot take this approach serious. I just cannot. What kind of an experiment is that. What kind of proof? You already have a build-in explanation for all kinds of failure!

How can such an experiment prove anything? Spiritually or materialistically?

Reminds me of the stock christian answer to, "Does god answer prayers?"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes later on. The exact same results we.would expect if there were no god answering prayers at all.

 

[quatona]

Wouldn't atheism be better, if it was multivalent?

Yes, and taking the trash out would be better if it were intellectually fulfilling, creative and inspiring.
Fortunately, people who take the trash out can also do intellectually fulfilling, creative and inspiring things, and atheists (beyond not believing in the existence of gods) can and usually do have multivalent worldviews.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When an atheist goes about life they have all sorts of beliefs about everything. When they get in the car, they believe it needs gas, that to accelerate they need to press the pedal, that when they come to a stop sign they believe they need to brake. When they go to the grocery store, they believe they need a basket, they believe they need to pay, they believe they need to look for items that are important. When they get to work, they believe they need to listen to their boss, they believe they need to complete their work, they believe they need to agree with their coworkers...

...but when they come to belief in God: nope, He doesn't exist. Period.

You can't see that as some kind of big mistake?

The only mistake here is you conflating faith-based beliefs in things like gods, with KNOWLEDGE of stuff like cars needing gas.

Do you honestly think that because you stop short of using your mind that people will believe that time has run out of for God? You don't think if there is a God, that He is relying on you using your beliefs about life to form an opinion of what He was? You don't see that saying no to this, is actually a kind of willful ignorance that could have dangerous consequences?

You don't see that you could replace the word "god" in that paragraph with any of the gazillion of things you can imagine that can't be shown to exist, without the paragraph's content changing in any way?

I'm not saying you have to have beliefs about God, that's the point, you could have beliefs about anything, only don't let your brain die, because you don't want to join in the fun, that is just crazy.

I'ld say the opposite is true.
Once I simply start accepting things without evidence (= faith-based)... that's when my brain dies.