|
Useful Notes Atheism Discussion
On the other wiki. It says that when evolutionary supporters are presented with the claim that evolution is a religion they point out that this is an argument by analogy and having one or a couple things in common doesn't make them the same.
Evolutionary supporters also point out that creationists are equivocating between the strict definition and colloquial definitions of religion and that religion isn't defined by how dogmatic or zealous one is but by spiritual or supernatural beliefs.
Can parallels be drawn to atheism?
Samadhir brings up a really good point about the current introduction to the definition with regards to that Pew survey with the 21% of God-believing atheists
:
:
- So, we're supposed to let atheists speak for and define themselves, but not when it conflicts with what a "true atheist" should be?
- The laziest possible definition would be to say that "atheists are people who declare themselves to be atheists", and there is a lot to recommend that definition — but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God. Thus, to say an atheist is all those and only those who identify as atheists, while valid from a social perspective, is profoundly unsatisfying even from an etymological viewpointnote , much less a philosophical one.
- The laziest possible definition would be to say that "atheists are people who declare themselves to be atheists", and there is a lot to recommend that definition — but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.
"...the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God".
Well...then how the hell are they even atheists?
EDIT: I read the above entry post, but it still confuses me. The term "atheist" means "one who does not believe in a God" ("a" meaning "no" or "lack", "theos" meaning "deity"). Wouldn't it be easier to call these "atheists who believe in God" agnostic; as in, they're at least "pretty sure" there's a Supreme/higher being, but they can't pinpoint who or what, or maybe just don't want to bother paying tribute to one.
Any survey like this has some danger of attracting a) idiots who don't read the questions properly, and b) trolls who give deliberately stupid answers. 21% still seems a bit high for this though, so I suspect the most likely explanation is that they're using some rather dubious personal definition of "atheist", maybe deciding that since they believe in a god but don't follow any specific religion that makes them an atheist.
This sort of thing does tend to happen with people holding on to labels without really thinking about them - looking at the other side, the Richard Dawkins Foundation recently did a survey of people who called themselves Christian in the 2011 UK census and got results such as 12% don't consider themselves religious at all, 6% don't belive in god (plus another 32% with a fairly woolly definition of "god"), only 44% believe Jesus was the son of god, and only 28% said they called themselves Christian because they believed in the teachings of the religion.
of people who called themselves Christian in the 2011 UK census and got results such as 12% don't consider themselves religious at all, 6% don't belive in god (plus another 32% with a fairly woolly definition of "god"), only 44% believe Jesus was the son of god, and only 28% said they called themselves Christian because they believed in the teachings of the religion.
I've been having a discussion with jate88 over PM about which definition of "atheism" should be endorsed by the page, and this got me thinking about rewriting the introduction of the article a bit. Does anyone have comments on the following introduction? (Most of the text of the current introduction would be preserved — this goes in front.)
The first question to be resolved when discussing atheism is the basic one: what is an atheist? This is actually a bit trickier than you might suppose. The laziest possible definition would be to say that "an atheist is someone who declares themself to be an atheist", and there is a lot to recommend that definition, but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God. We could go on and claim that 23% of virgins have had sex and 21% of dead people are still alive, but it seems wiser to consider other possibilities.
The second-laziest option is to check a dictionary. The 1913 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary offers this: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being." Again, this is a definition with much to recommend it — but it excludes quite a lot of professed atheists, and not just from the 10% that pray at least once a week, but people like Richard Dawkins.
The third-laziest option is to ask members of the atheist community. This has problems of its own, but it shares the advantages of both the previous methods: we are still allowing atheists to define themselves, but with the caveat that the definition must be in some sense rational. The only major disadvantage to keep in mind is that the definition they have come up with is fairly broad, and a goodly number of those included in its span would object to being called "atheists".
The first question to be resolved when discussing atheism is the basic one: what is an atheist? This is actually a bit trickier than you might suppose. The laziest possible definition would be to say that "an atheist is someone who declares themself to be an atheist", and there is a lot to recommend that definition, but that definition is inadequate in a number of major ways. The most important of these is reflected in the Pew survey which found 21% of atheists believe in God.
We could go on and claim that 23% of virgins have had sex and 21% of dead people are still alive, but it seems wiser to consider other possibilities.
The second-laziest option is to check a dictionary. The 1913 edition of Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary offers this: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being." Again, this is a definition with much to recommend it — but it excludes quite a lot of professed atheists, and not just from the 10% that pray at least once a week, but people like Richard Dawkins.
The third-laziest option is to ask members of the atheist community. This has problems of its own, but it shares the advantages of both the previous methods: we are still allowing atheists to define themselves, but with the caveat that the definition must be in some sense rational. The only major disadvantage to keep in mind is that the definition they have come up with is fairly broad, and a goodly number of those included in its span would object to being called "atheists".
Atheists will often point out that we each build our own morality regardless of our religious standings. This can be argued on two points:
Wouldn't a third point be that even if theists do prove a moral code needs to be biult into the physics of the universe they're still just guessing if holy books and hearsay are all they're going by?
(It must be noted, of course, that the idea that the religious act out of a fear of hell is largely a strawman — in most cases, like atheists, religious people will do moral acts simply because it's the "right" thing to do.)
While this is true once religious people make this reply they're probably still not going to understand how an atheist can have a moral code.
As an Agnostic, I would prefer not to be characterized, as this page does, as a Soft Athiest. My position on diety and the supernatural, that the existence of same is unknown and may be unknowable, is not the same as a lack of belief, any more than it is the same as a belief. It's hardly fair to take such a broad and intellectually legitimate world view (more especially, this wiki has only a short, perfunctory page on Agnosticism) and treat it as nothing more than Atheism's "little, redheaded stepbrother".
"Liberal theologians often complain that atheists don't talk about their religion - that atheists instead mock a caricature based on a shallow understanding of their holy texts."
...worth noting, I think, that when atheists do take liberal theologians to task directly, they often get called out for being jerkasses to people who are basically in moral agreement with them, and told they should focus on people whose beliefs are more overtly harmful instead. Damned if you do, damned if you don't....
Alright, this thread is for the discussion of Creationist-like concepts withing the umbrella of Atheism.
Given it's broad nature, Atheism can include subsets of both Buddhism, Chinese ancestor Worship, and Alien belief systems. Just as the word "Theism" covers all religions that believe in a god or gods. It is within these subsets, some of which are defined as their own religions, that such concepts exist. They believe in spirits or other skyward entities which act as the supernatural agents defined as Gods in other religions. They also often believe in a form of life after death, making them more religious.
The short thing is: it's a complex issue, but it's better covered under their own headings rather than here.
Further, conflating these ideas with Panspermia and similar ideas is intellectually dishonest.
I have excised the following bullet point from the main page:
- There is the belief that atheism is indeed a religion, a religion that there is no god. This is based on the fact that atheists center their world view around the concept of no god (the same as theists place their values around god) as well as how atheists practice, express and defend their beliefs with all the fervor of those who do attend places of worship, which is a definition so worthless as to encompass any hardcore fan of any fandom as a religious person. Religion is not defined by fanaticism.
This is unlocked? Oh my god...
A decent article but it runs into definitional problems within the first few paragraphs. Atheism, is "literally" and not "broadly" defined as a lack of belief in gods. The catch phrase "a lack of belief" has its own bit of intellectual mischief as some people try to improperly blur the difference between the passive from the active, ambivalence and choice. Similarly, there is a difference between knowing, not knowing and not caring, but that is not given a balanced consideration.
Someone who "knows" or "believes" that there is no God and no gods is definitely an atheist proper. Those who don't know are - literally - agnostic. Those who don't care are not merely atheistic, but aphilosophical or ametaphysical, and to claim to care about philosophical questions while not caring about the question of god is simply inconsistent or incoherent. "Weak atheism" is effectively agnosticism.
As a matter of pure semantics, many atheists are in fact agnostics as are many people that self-described atheists describe, in turn, as atheists. "Implicit atheists" is used but the more proper term is "Inferred Atheists" because babies and space aliens can't imply anything if they have no knowledge of the concept under consideration; observers infer it from their behaviour. Oddly, inferential reasoning is not much appreciated in some circles.
On a more practical level - more "broadly" speaking - the literal definition of atheism is not that instructive because, as pointed out, Buddhists and other religious groups meet that literal definition, but no reasonable person would describe them as atheists, nor would they describe themselves as such.
The reality is that most self-described atheists are metaphysical naturalists and by the definitions of their own world view, there can be no "gods".
Where the paradox and cognitive dissonance comes up is that procedural naturalism assumes that there is only the material world and only natural explanations for all observed phenomena. That is the basis of science, and it has worked out pretty good overall. The difference is that metaphysical naturalism is not merely an assumption, but a belief that science can explain everything; and consequently, anything not explained scientifically is either wrong or irrelevant.
The thing is, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition but rather a metaphysical proposition, the truth of which can neither be proved or disproved by imperical inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the existence of God, although a lack of scientific proof is what many atheists (Ricky Gervais recently) cite as their reason. That is not, strictly, logical.
Either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god. If you have no belief, you are more properly an agnostic, not an atheist. Similarly, people who don't care are not atheists. Religious beliefs that do not include gods are not atheistic in any practical sense. It has been pointed out that atheism is not a religion, but then those people who obviously form a religion can't be called atheists.
That's why in objective polls only a few percentage points of the population are counted as atheists while in other polls they can juice the numbers up to 10%, 20% or more.
It's all fine and well, but you really have to figure out what you belive in, if anything, before you attach labels to yourself and others.
I think that's an interesting tidbit, but they are still considered different religions (in that they deal with continuation of the consciousness after death), while Atheism is not. I'll bring up a quote from Aron Ra's excellent "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
" series:
" series:
- "A religion is not just any ol’ thing you happen to believe, and its not just anything you believe strongly either. Every belief-system which is commonly accepted as a religion by both its adherents and its critics -is a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and the associated dogma of faith-based belief systems which all include the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul or portion of consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being. This applies to every religion and only to religion, but doesn’t apply to evolution or atheists either, unless they happen to be Druids or Shaman or one of those other religions which don’t happen to include gods."Some Buddhists believe in a god and some don’t. Some traditional Chinese beliefs are the same way. Not all religions have creative deities, but every religion must propose something paranormal, beyond tangible existence which they believe we’ll experience after we die. You can’t posit something like that without faith, and if you don’t have faith, you can’t have religion."And when creationists complain about atheists, they’re not talking about Buddhists or Shaman. They’re referring to material empirical rationalists, people they know don’t have any faith in anything supernatural at all –which only makes their lie [that evolution is the religion of Atheism] that much more brazen."
You didn't refute anything and that is not what I said. Sayonara
Is the "Atheism Myths" section really necessary? The examples are either ridiculous ("Atheist's don't worship Satan") or over-generalizations ("Atheists aren't evangelical"). I can see why this page turned into an edit war.
Just a quick note on a likely typo to whoever has the power to edit the page. In the "Atheism in the media" section, the point on Dawkins and such not being official representatives of atheism has a double negative, "aside from that lack of belief there's not really not much else that all atheists have in common".
Contrary to popular opinion, atheists do not:
Worship Satan: Atheists do not believe in Satan any more than they believe in God. Therefore, they cannot worship either. (Note, though, that many proclaimed "Satanists" are actually atheists, and take the label for other reasons.)
Is it worth mentioning that simply being an atheist doesn't entail lack of belief in Satan unless your definition of Satan includes that he's a god? Though most atheists don't believe in Satan either.
I am not really sure about the whole sentence "Even so, the association of Communism with irreligion is hardly perfect, as both North Korea and modern China demonstrate."
I assume North Korea is refering to the cult of personality, so I get where that is coming from, but I don't entirely understand the inclusion of China. It is true that many of the common citizens are embracing religion there, but the same is true of capitalism, so I don't think they are entirely indicative of communism. Yes, now some people in the Party practice religion (though this against the Party's official stance), and in the same vein people can now have various private property rights. In fact, the growing leniency by those in power to religion mirrors the leniency toward capitalist ideas. The association between increasing religion and decreasing dogmatic communism says more about the evolution of the policies of the PRC than it does communist policies.
Moreover, I think the inclusion of China demonstrates a double standard. I hardly think that if both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US officially considered atheism incompatible with their party, and the US government only tolerated five atheists groups (though still forbiding even them and their members from advocating for atheism), imprisoned and even tortured (sometimes to death) atheists for belonging to any other atheists groups, that atheists would give the US as a counter example to the stance that capitalism is associated with religion. Yet China has that stance towards religions and here it is as a counter example for an association between communism and irreligion.
(though this against the Party's official stance), and in the same vein people can now have various private property rights. In fact, the growing leniency by those in power to religion mirrors the leniency toward capitalist ideas. The association between increasing religion and decreasing dogmatic communism says more about the evolution of the policies of the PRC than it does communist policies.
Moreover, I think the inclusion of China demonstrates a double standard. I hardly think that if both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the US officially considered atheism incompatible with their party, and the US government only tolerated five atheists groups (though still forbiding even them and their members from advocating for atheism), imprisoned and even tortured (sometimes to death) atheists for belonging to any other atheists groups, that atheists would give the US as a counter example to the stance that capitalism is associated with religion. Yet China has that stance towards religions and here it is as a counter example for an association between communism and irreligion.
"Declaring that something is beyond the reach of science is not only obscenely arrogant (just because you can't think of a way to test it...), it disarms you of almost every argument that an atheist would consider relevant."
Um, unfalsifiable philosophical questions ARE beyond the reach of Science. This is a feature of Science, not a flaw. Science is an empirical study of the natural world, and it has nothing to say on religion, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc. A claim such as "there is a god" is by definition unfalsifiable and untestable, it has nothing to do with being creative and coming up with a way to test it.
Have you seen this?
I would consider that a fair scientific test of a religious claim.
I would consider that a fair scientific test of a religious claim.
Interestingly, Occam's Razor does have a mathematical formulation: it's called Solomonoff induction, and defines "simpler" in terms of something called Kolmogorov complexity: a hypothesis is simpler if it can be simulated using a smaller computer program.
, and defines "simpler" in terms of something called Kolmogorov complexity: a hypothesis is simpler if it can be simulated using a smaller computer program.
Drolyt, you're showing a fundemental misunderstanding about what occam's razor does. Simple is well defined within it, and Hume's thesis is not that well supported in light of...reality.
This Explination is one of my favorites on the subject of Occam's razor.
Further, appeals to authority without citation or quotation is not exactly the strongest argument to make. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.
Finally, we don't need perfect knowledge, we just need working knowledge until more, better information comes along so we can improve our working knowledge.
is one of my favorites on the subject of Occam's razor.
Further, appeals to authority without citation or quotation is not exactly the strongest argument to make. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.
Finally, we don't need perfect knowledge, we just need working knowledge until more, better information comes along so we can improve our working knowledge.
Drolyt: You are arguing that the position of atheists is incoherent or wrong, not that the text of the page is an incorrect depiction of their position. Given how many people are stepping up to defend the former, I don't think you have much grounds for denying the latter, and it is the latter which is relevant to including the passage on the page.
If you want to argue about the "obscenely", you may, but otherwise I can't see that you have any ground to stand on. Particularly since religion is disprovable.
.
Regarding "Conversely, atheists complain that liberal theologians ignore the obvious meaning of their holy texts, and will even be heard to offer (left-handed) compliments to fundamentalists for their willingness to stand by a literal reading of the text. This is particularly aggravating because liberal theists and atheists often agree on moral and political issues, such as the separation of church and state."
The reason for this is that many atheists find philosophical and ethical hypocrisy infuriating, generally because a substantial portion of the behaviors which may irk them are in fact veiled in interpretations and rationalizations they find hypocritical. To encounter a religious person who does in fact take pains to literally follow the directives they espouse is generally a breath of fresh air, as they are then dealing with a person with a reasoned out and internally consistent worldview. While the worldview of a literalist fundamentalist is alien, it is also consistent and logical. The liberal theologians, on the other hand, are often thought to be attempting to affix religious doctrine to the beliefs they hold independent of religion, and that they are doing so in a very inconsistent way. As such, the mindset of the fundamentalist literalist is very close in certain ways to that of a scientist or scholar, and the mindset of the liberal theologians which share the general views of the average atheist is that of a chaotic, inconsistant cloudcucoolander who acts on their whimsy without any basis, and simply asserts that an all-powerful god agrees with them without justification - a very Nightmare Fuel viewpoint.
AT 75.135.145.202: I found an article on the history of the interpretation of the Bible on Google — that's about it. Are there other parts you find questionable?
Edit: Also, re Schizo Technician's points, the purpose of this Useful Notes is to inform people about typical modern atheists. If you have a good counterargument for the Literalism section, mention it to atheists you meet — most of the ones I've met haven't heard any.
on Google — that's about it. Are there other parts you find questionable?
Edit: Also, re Schizo Technician's points, the purpose of this Useful Notes is to inform people about typical modern atheists. If you have a good counterargument for the Literalism section, mention it to atheists you meet — most of the ones I've met haven't heard any.
This article makes it sound like virtually everyone that a literalist in the past (in fact using the words, "almost all believers"). But the question of what parts of scripture are literal and what parts are figurative has been controversial in the Church since before the bible was even compiled (for example that was on of the main points of the School of Alexandria considered many parts of the Bible allegories (a little background is in this book). And in fact, Jews have had different interpretations of the literalism of their works since before Christians even existed. Yes Bible literalism came into fashion, just like in physical science, Aristotle's belief belief in "infinitely divisible" matter surpassed Democritus' theory of discrete atoms, that doesn't mean that reading parts of the Bible non-historically become irrelevent. And similarly the return of people who believe in non-historical readings of parts the Bible now because of theological developments shouldn't be more discounted than the return of people who believe in atoms now because of developments in physical sciences, simply because most people at some point in the past didn't share their beliefs (for most of the past two millennia in both cases). (Yes I understand as atheists, you won't agree with the theology behind it, but that is not the point.) I understand this is supposed to be a pro-atheist page, but I treating an entire movement as inconsequential in order to support your point across still shouldn't happen. Yes, I understand that atheists do commonly make this point, but the article should express that its not as cut-and-dry as it is typically portrayed and non-literalists are an important and ancient part of tradition (including one of the church fathers in the case of Christianity).
). And in fact, Jews have had different interpretations of the literalism of their works since before Christians even existed. Yes Bible literalism came into fashion, just like in physical science, Aristotle's belief belief in "infinitely divisible" matter surpassed Democritus' theory of discrete atoms, that doesn't mean that reading parts of the Bible non-historically become irrelevent. And similarly the return of people who believe in non-historical readings of parts the Bible now because of theological developments shouldn't be more discounted than the return of people who believe in atoms now because of developments in physical sciences, simply because most people at some point in the past didn't share their beliefs (for most of the past two millennia in both cases). (Yes I understand as atheists, you won't agree with the theology behind it, but that is not the point.) I understand this is supposed to be a pro-atheist page, but I treating an entire movement as inconsequential in order to support your point across still shouldn't happen. Yes, I understand that atheists do commonly make this point, but the article should express that its not as cut-and-dry as it is typically portrayed and non-literalists are an important and ancient part of tradition (including one of the church fathers in the case of Christianity).
There is a reason why many religious people are refusing to acknowledge the possibility of there being no God(s). Humans naturally fear death (this is perfectly logical; we all know that we'll die one day), and religion gives them an escape from death, a hope for a life in the next. And people are afraid to give up religion, because to accept that there is no God(s) is to accept your own mortality, and so the person in context will often block out the ideas of others. And being an Atheist is to admit that we are mortal, that our life is the only life we've got.
I'm an atheist so I agree with this page. However, may I suggest that the reference to Objectivism under the subheading "Adhere To Communism" be linked to the Useful Notes article we have on Objectivism? We reference the philosophy, so we might as well put a link there.
Might a catagorey for common atheist arguments against deities (Such as problem of evil, scriptural incosistancies, etc...) be warranted? Most atheists share a few certain arguments as to why religion in general fails, and those might be worth using. Needless to say, any specific arguments (such as one against christianity in particular) should be left out, both for clutter and avoiding flamebait.
"Further, since atheists believe that we humans have only ourselves to rely on when it comes to moral guidance, the apparent fact that most societies grow more compassionate and egalitarian over time suggests that human nature is pretty virtuous."
Where did this come from? Just because western society has rolled a string of double sixes over the last 500 years, doesn't mean that it's going to keep heading that way. In fact, probably at least half of us would describe the last century as a downhill descent into a crapsack world, in moral/ethical terms if not technological. And all the technological gains have done is ruled out, forever, any chance of an actual revolution ever succeeding (it would be detected well before it had a significant number of members, and crushed easily).
I can't name a single other culture that got "more compassionate and egalitarian" as time went by. Perhaps someone else can?
Can someone who has the power to change this page change the pound signs in the section about the Atheist Bus Campaign, as they are appearing like this (£) instead of this (£)?
Quick question: is this page locked? It would be nice to be notified in the Discussion page, if it were.
First, I would like to say that this is a great article. Second, is that note about Family Guy really necessary? The article does not list every atheist who is a jerk, so does it have to list this one? I have not watched the episode, but is it really that bad?
Something else that should be pointed out: Atheists are not "angry" at God, and anger at a god or gods very rarely plays a part in the deconversion. How common is this belief? Common enough so that I, who became an atheist at the age of 16 (and had been doubting the existence of a god since I was 12), have been accused of "being angry at God" by at least ten different people.