Futile Atheism

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]The very nature of atheism is its statement regarding any deity.

No, the very nature of atheism is in an absence of theism. So atheism is at it roots an absence of belief in god(s). Of course, that S lacks belief in X does not entail that S endorses any statements regarding any X-concepts. In fact, it does not even entail that S even holds an ...[text shortened]... s how you are using the term. I would say there is generally some controversy over the term.[/b]

Well, okay: if you're intent on redefining the phrase, I guess we could say it encompasses the sentiment that, although God does not exist, we who hold this belief are great admirers of puppies, new-born chicks and colors within the pastel spectrum.

It matters not what we manipulate the term into, at its base is the original thought. Namely, 'without gods.' No more, no less.
Not 'without the g-word';
not 'without that standard to which those outside of me hold to';
succinctly, without gods.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

succinctly, without gods.

'I have no use for that hypothesis.'

Atheists: people who get along without gods.

Democritus, lend me your atoms.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, okay: if you're intent on redefining the phrase, I guess we could say it encompasses the sentiment that, although God does not exist, we who hold this belief are great admirers of puppies, new-born chicks and colors within the pastel spectrum.

It matters not what we manipulate the term into, at its base is the original thought. Namely, 'without g ...[text shortened]... 'without that standard to which those outside of me hold to';
succinctly, without gods.

WTF? I guess you still do not see need to clarify the discussion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
WTF? I guess you still do not see need to clarify the discussion.

Wow, that's funny?

Take atheism at its base. Don't muddy the waters with distinctions which add nothing to the discussion. Without gods. Pretty simple.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wow, that's funny?

Take atheism at its base. Don't muddy the waters with distinctions which add nothing to the discussion. Without gods. Pretty simple.

I am an atheist in the active/strong sense. I have a concept 'God', which has a meaning, but which I believe has no referent in the world. It is not as though my atheism is based on a rejection of God, since that would entail that I am tacitly committed to there being something in the world, to which the concept 'God' refers, that my atheism rejects. Rather, my atheism is just the belief that the concept 'God' does not pick out anything actual. In this regard it is like my concept 'Santa Claus', and unlike my concept 'Chair'. The concept 'Santa Claus' has a meaning; I can reason about what would follow, hypothetically, if the concept did refer to something real. My concept 'Chair', on the other hand, has both a meaning and a bunch of referents; those actual things in the world to which the concept properly applies. It is because you fail to appreciate the difference between the sense or meaning of a concept and its reference that you think your ridiculous claims in this thread are anything other than reason on holiday.

Originally posted by bbarr
I am an atheist in the active/strong sense. I have a concept 'God', which has a meaning, but which I believe has no referent in the world. It is not as though my atheism is based on a rejection of God, since that would entail that I am tacitly committed to there being something in the world, to which the concept 'God' refers, that my atheism rejects. Rather ...[text shortened]... k your ridiculous claims in this thread are anything other than reason on holiday.

I have a concept 'God', which has a meaning, but which I believe has no referent in the world.
So far, so good.

It is not as though my atheism is based on a rejection of God, since that would entail that I am tacitly committed to there being something in the world, to which the concept 'God' refers, that my atheism rejects.
Your atheism is a rejection of that notion of God. Whether you like it or not, you are responding to that notion; describe yourself in terms of that response.

It is because you fail to appreciate the difference between the sense or meaning of a concept and its reference that you think your ridiculous claims in this thread are anything other than reason on holiday.
The distinctions do little in terms of illumination or clarification. The concepts aren't difficult to follow: your brand of atheism rejects the notion of gods--- no matter what any of them might entail--- wholesale. Mustard is still mustard, regardless of whether it's Dijon or yellow.

However, you are nonetheless self-described in your relation to the notion of deity, pure and simple. No matter what finer tuning you put to your rejection, you are known for what you reject AND you cannot describe your beliefs without acknowledging that which you reject. Your denomination of atheism does nothing to slacken its core idea.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I have a concept 'God', which has a meaning, but which I believe has no referent in the world.
So far, so good.

It is not as though my atheism is based on a rejection of God, since that would entail that I am tacitly committed to there being something in the world, to which the concept 'God' refers, that my atheism rejects.
Your atheism hat which you reject. Your denomination of atheism does nothing to slacken its core idea.[/b]

Please, try to be clear. I am not rejecting any notion of God. I am rejecting the claim that a particular concept 'God' correctly applies to anything actual. I am not responding to any notion. I am responding to the claim that 'God' has an actual referent. I respond to this claim by asking for evidence, presenting arguments, etc. I have come to believe that this claim is false and, hence, that the concept 'God', although it has a meaning, does not apply in any interesting way to the world as it is. If you don't think that the distinction between the meaning of a term and its referent is illuminating, then God help you. In any case, my atheism has very little to do with who I am, what I actually believe, how I live my live, etc. I am interested in theology because it is philosophy in miniature; you start with some premises, and see what follows. You want to claim that atheism is somehow reactionary; that we are all hopelessly bound up by theistic belief even if only in its rejection. But this is fantasy. I like arguing, but I think theistic belief is nonsense and, more importantly, simply irrelevant to my life and what is of value.

Originally posted by bbarr
Please, try to be clear. I am not rejecting any notion of God. I am rejecting the claim that a particular concept 'God' correctly applies to anything actual. I am not responding to any notion. I am responding to the claim that 'God' has an actual referent. I respond to this claim by asking for evidence, presenting arguments, etc. I have come to believe t ...[text shortened]... ief is nonsense and, more importantly, simply irrelevant to my life and what is of value.

Please, try to be clear.
Do you mean try harder or just try in the first place?

I am not rejecting any notion of God. I am rejecting the claim that a particular concept 'God' correctly applies to anything actual. I am not responding to any notion. I am responding to the claim that 'God' has an actual referent.
I think you may be confusing yourself. A notion is...

a general understanding; vague or imperfect conception or idea of something
and a claim is...
to assert or maintain as a fact

By saying you reject the claim, you are rejecting the notion that such a thing exists. Your demand for some unknown list of evidence notwithstanding, you arrive at the same conclusion, i.e., that such a concept as is claimed (the existence of God) is, in your opinion, non-existent.

While any number of spiritualists (so-called) could be called upon to campaign for the position that God is just an idea without any referent outside of man, these spiritualists suffer from the same delusion as you: they have convinced themselves that God doesn't exist. Unlike you, they embrace the idea of God but at their core belief, you are kindred spirits (so to speak), both rejecting the reality of God.

I have come to believe that this claim is false and, hence, that the concept 'God', although it has a meaning, does not apply in any interesting way to the world as it is.
It's unfortunate that God fails to meet your standard for interest. Maybe He should try harder, too.

In any case, my atheism has very little to do with who I am, what I actually believe, how I live my live, etc.
Your commitment to the belief seems rather tenuous: more like an accoutrement than an actual conviction. Are you saying you believe something other than what you've put forth?

You want to claim that atheism is somehow reactionary; that we are all hopelessly bound up by theistic belief even if only in its rejection. But this is fantasy.
I don't want to claim anything that isn't true. Atheism (as a word) has been around since the latter part of the 16th century. Prior to that, there's not a wide-spread movement of the concept to be seen, although it is certain we could find pockets of isolated folks here and there who held such a belief.

What we do emphatically see, however, in all of man's history is a belief in deity(s). This is indisputably a primary function of man and is evidenced from the earliest recordings ever discovered. As a default position intuitively held by man, it stands to the atheist to take the reactionary position.

I like arguing, but I think theistic belief is nonsense and, more importantly, simply irrelevant to my life and what is of value.
Sadly, so do most Christians.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
According to some fundamentalists the definition of an atheist is: "Someone who doesn't believe as I do."
So what of the fundamental atheist? To him, am I an anti-atheist? A-atheist?

When you write "pervasiveness of God" and "rejection of Him", then who is He, who is your God? Define it or fail! Or does your "God" include every god there is?
He's th ...[text shortened]... th incidentals, give what you consider to be the useful [b]end of atheism.[/b]

So what of the fundamental atheist? To him, am I an anti-atheist? A-atheist?
I don't deny that there is also a atheistic fundamentalism that has the same qualities as every kind of fundamentalism. Fundamentlists tend to give their individual thinking over to authorities.

He's that same Person you're hoping doesn't exist, the One you'd rather not have to answer to at the end of your life.
In multiteistic religions, not every one of their gods are the same as the christian god.

When you non-atheists have so many mutually exlusive opinions of what and who god is, then I must say that atheists are more stringent in their belief.
By this I don't know what you mean. There are no pan-atheistic movements, that I'm aware of. If you know anyone, please enlighten me.

Really? What is the useful end of atheism, exactly, if there be no God? Don't chip away with incidentals, give what you consider to be the useful end of atheism.
Again you are talking of a god. Whichever god? Or one in particular?

You can have your religion as you want it. I just object to the title of this thread. Nothing more. It's just not a good way to describe atheism.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So what of the fundamental atheist? To him, am I an anti-atheist? A-atheist?
I don't deny that there is also a atheistic fundamentalism that has the same qualities as every kind of fundamentalism. Fundamentlists tend to give their individual thinking over to authorities.

He's that same Person you're hoping doesn't exist, the One you'd rather n ...[text shortened]... o the title of this thread. Nothing more. It's just not a good way to describe atheism.

Fundamentlists tend to give their individual thinking over to authorities.
Agreed, in part.

By this I don't know what you mean.
I didn't say this. I responded to it, but you're not quoting me here.

You can have your religion as you want it. I just object to the title of this thread. Nothing more. It's just not a good way to describe atheism.
And you can have yours. However, the intent of the title and thread (despite what it has devolved into) was the irony of how life mimics the afterlife.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You want to claim that atheism is somehow reactionary; that we are all hopelessly bound up by theistic belief even if only in its rejection. But this is fantasy.
I don't want to claim anything that isn't true. Atheism (as a word) has been around since the latter part of the 16th century. Prior to that, there's not a wide-spread movement of the conc ...[text shortened]... position intuitively held by man, it stands to the atheist to take the reactionary position.[/b]

Your position is completely false. Modern humans, Homo sapiens, have been around for about 200,000 years. The earliest evidence we have for religious belief in humans is with intentional burials of the dead, the earliest examples of which date to 80,000 to 100,000 years ago. It is possible that humans may have had quasi-religious sentiments prior to that, but there is no evidence for it. So we are left with the possibility that humans have been implicit atheists for one half of their entire history and the certainty that humans began their existence that way.

And that's just any run-of-the-mill religious sentiment. If we examine Christianity specifically, we can see it has been possible to be a Christian for only the last 2,000 years. In other words, it has only been possible to be a Christian for 1% of human history. ONE PERCENT. 99% percent of human history has been lived as non-Christians. And that is just counting Homo sapiens, while discounting all their hominid ancestors.

As for atheism being a reactive position, of course it is. There's no surprise there. If nobody articulates the concept of god, then there is nothing to react to. There would be no explicit atheists. It's only after someone concocts the proposition of 'god' that people can decide to give it a thumbs up, or a thumbs down. 'Atheism' can only become an explicit position once 'theism' has been articulated.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your position is completely false. Modern humans, Homo sapiens, have been around for about 200,000 years. The earliest evidence we have for religious belief in humans is with intentional burials of the dead, the earliest examples of which date to 80,000 to 100,000 years ago. It is possible that humans may have had quasi-religious sentiments prior to that, b ...[text shortened]... own. 'Atheism' can only become an explicit position once 'theism' has been articulated.

Did you have something to say?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Did you have something to say?

Did you?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Did you have something to say?

I fear that FreakyKBH is displaying his common response to being accurately and relevantly refuted.

In the context of this thread there is an excellent response in that final sentence:

"As for atheism being a reactive position, of course it is. There's no surprise there. If nobody articulates the concept of god, then there is nothing to react to. There would be no explicit atheists. It's only after someone concocts the proposition of 'god' that people can decide to give it a thumbs up, or a thumbs down. 'Atheism' can only become an explicit position once 'theism' has been articulated."

rwingett has plenty to say and has said it effectively, succinctly and better than most.

I would just add that of course atheism was a necessary position because, up to the 18th Century or later, Christianity dominated all thinking in the West. In order to make space for reason, it was necessary to escape from that dominance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As above, the only folks labeled non-Muslims are those outside the religion--- by those within the religion. I can think of no one who has ever represented or introduced themselves by what they are not...

...except for atheists, or any number of anti-whatevers.

I just called you a non-Muslim in the post you were responding to. I am not Muslim. This proves your statement false.

I have represented myself as non-Muslim to my Muslim friends, and non-Christian to my Christian friends and non-theist (or atheist) to my theist friends. I tend to use atheist rather than non-Christian when speaking to Christians simply to reduce the questions that invariably follow the "non-Christian" statement ie "what religion are you?"

But you are totally incorrect if you think I go around introducing myself to people and announcing my "belief system" as "atheist". It hardly ever comes up in day to day conversation with most people.