Your thoughts on atheism...

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what if it is?

Yeah, what if it is? You are surely going to tell me.

Originally posted by Iacchus
That only reiterates what I have to say even more?

You have something to say? Why don't you just say it then, huh?

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Yes, but can we help but not believe in anything? If reality is what remains after we stop believing, does that mean we only believed we were here when we were alive? Because certainly we are incapable of believing anything after we die, right?

[irony]My god Iacchus, you're right. Roaches, bacteria and anthozoans must believe they are alive while they are living.[irony]

 

[MLynn]

Agnostic is a socially acceptable word for atheist?

***Kopji's Godless Calculator***

My experience and study do not lead me to know for sure, but based on the evidence so far I believe there is a God.
-Theist

I have felt the power of God in my life and I know there is a God. I wish you could know this feeling too.
-Theist

My experience and study do not lead me to know absolutely, but based on the evidence so far there's only a tiny infinitesimal chance of there being a God. A chance like apples suddenly falling up instead of down.
-Atheist

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. I continue to look for answers.
-Agnostic

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. I choose to believe in God, let go of the search and just live.
-Theist Light

I can study, experiment, and wonder forever, but the final answer will always lie beyond my grasp. Time to let go of the search and just live.
-Atheist Light

I want there to be a God, but there's not. I participate in religion because I think that belief has value to society. But not because I actually believe.
-Closet Atheist or Evil Theist

I wanted there to be a God, but thankfully there's not. I participate in religion for control or power, not because I actually believe.
-Atheist as described on religious websites.

Kopji, I like your post. I always thought an atheist was an atheist was an atheist. Pardon my inadequate term, but it seems there are different "denominations" of atheists like in Christianity. Is this a bad comparison? I've never liked labeling people; it puts up too many barriers between them.

 

[Mercutio]

Kopji, I like your post. I always thought an atheist was an atheist was an atheist. Pardon my inadequate term, but it seems there are different "denominations" of atheists like in Christianity. Is this a bad comparison? I've never liked labeling people; it puts up too many barriers between them.

Good question! I personally do think it is a bad comparison, although if Iacchus had answered my earlier request, it might make a difference.

Different denominations of religions do share (within each, that is) a particular set of beliefs. It is not merely that they can be seperated into, say, catholic and protestant, evangelical or not, biblical literalists, etc, but that they actively separate themselves into such groups. They have, as an organized group, a set of beliefs which describe (or prescribe) the beliefs of the group members. This is not at all the case with the different types of atheists Kopji listed. Kopji's list described categories into which one might sort atheists, but not a set of beliefs by which atheists organize. Indeed, the values systems of any two atheists may have nothing in common, and a given "hard atheist" may share more in common with a "soft atheist" or even a "hard theist" (yeah, with a few notable exceptions) than with another hard atheist.

The labels are merely descriptive of one aspect of an individual, and do not carry with them any other information. The label of a religious denomination, on the other hand, describes a true "set of beliefs". (Iacchus claims atheists do have a set of beliefs, but it seems that rather than describe them, he has retreated into gibberish.)

 

[daenku32]

Because we have to believe in something.

That something is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in theism.

 

[Iacchus]

(Iacchus claims atheists do have a set of beliefs, but it seems that rather than describe them, he has retreated into gibberish.)

So, do "mosts" Atheits believe in the theory of Evolution? Yea or nea? Do "most" Creationists believe in Evolution? Yea or nea? Now do you mean to tell me it doesn't make any diffference what you believe here and, that it's not going to effect how any of these people behave, in the least?

 

[Mercutio]

So, do "mosts" Atheits believe in the theory of Evolution? Yea or nea? Do "most" Creationists believe in Evolution? Yea or nea? Now do you mean to tell me it doesn't make any diffference what you believe here and, that it's not going to effect how any of these people behave, in the least?

I would assume the first to be a "yea", but since atheists come in so many sorts I cannot back that up (I know of no data addressing the question, but perhaps some one else here does.). I think the second is a "yea", because it is a fundamental tenet in their set of beliefs--i.e., they are in part defined by their failure to be convinced by the evidence for evolution by natural selection. Thank you for this example of exactly the distinction I was making to MLynn. Note, Iacchus, that the vast majority of Catholics also "believe in" evolution (see note below), or rather, are convinced by the available evidence that evolution by natural selection is true. The vast majority of Lutherans do, too, as do many (indeed, a majority, if memory serves) other denominations. So your strawman is exposed.

Do I mean to tell you it makes no difference what you believe? I meant, if you have been paying attention, to find out what you meant by a "set of beliefs" which you feel constitutes atheism. That is all I am after. I am not trying to make any other points. You could have answered the first time, and you'd have found out. (Of course, once you list them, we can examine them...but if you are right, you have nothing to fear.)

Note: For the record, I also answer your first two questions under protest, as the word "belief" makes this a question with a hidden surprise. One may believe something because the evidence for it is overwhelming (as, say, natural selection), one may believe in the absence of evidence (for,say, the soul), or one may believe in contradiction of the evidence (the creationists you mention--although, to be fair, not all of them believe in contradiction of evidence, but because they are fed misinformation as evidence). I would argue that the word "belief" is used vastly differently in each case.

 

[epepke]

I would assume the first to be a "yea", but since atheists come in so many sorts I cannot back that up (I know of no data addressing the question, but perhaps some one else here does.).

Probably, the majority of atheists worldwide are Buddhists or Taoists. Although a Taoist would probably have no problems with evolution, I don't know what a Buddhist might think.

 

[Ratman_tf]

So, do "mosts" Atheits believe in the theory of Evolution? Yea or nea?

Hardly any do.

 

[Iacchus]

Kopji, I like your post. I always thought an atheist was an atheist was an atheist. Pardon my inadequate term, but it seems there are different "denominations" of atheists like in Christianity. Is this a bad comparison? I've never liked labeling people; it puts up too many barriers between them.

Different denominations of beliefs or, disbeliefs? What the hell is the difference? Sorry MLynn, this is not directed towards you.

 

[Iacchus]

Hardly any do.

Oh I'm sorry, how about if I rephrase that and say most "Atheists" who post on this forum? Would that make a difference? Geeze, you almost got me into believing there are two separate and distinct animals here!

 

[Mercutio]

Oh I'm sorry, how about if I rephrase that and say most "Atheists" who post on this forum? Would that make a difference? Geeze, you almost got me into believing there are two separate and distinct animals here!

Oh, gee, now you are in a huff.

Most theists who post on this forum also are convinced by the evidence that evolution by natural selection occurs. (If this is the definition of "belief" that you are using...but as I said before, you are conflating at least three different sorts of "belief", so I will not speak for you.)

Don't work too hard building strawmen, Iacchus; they don't last long enough to be worth your effort.

 

[Atlas]

Probably, the majority of atheists worldwide are Buddhists or Taoists. Although a Taoist would probably have no problems with evolution, I don't know what a Buddhist might think.

Interesting question. I have never heard a Buddhist interpretation of the theory of evolution. I would think though that they could embrace it even more easily that Judeo-Christian-Islamists.

One idea in Buddhism is that "It's all an illusion." Another is the "perfecting soul reincarnating." I can intuit a line of reasoning that would predict a new form of life whenever karmic selection demands one. A "Changing Forms within the Illusion" theory seems easier to explain in Hinduism and Buddhism than "Where did the Dinosaurs Go" theory in western religion.

 

[gnome]

Do you revere what this means or, do you practice it for any particular reason in general? If, in fact it involves ritual, and a specific set of beliefs, I would suggest it's awfully close to smacking of religion.

If you count voting, speaking out, and occasionally demonstrating as a "ritual"... then by your tortured definition it would be. But I think that definition of "religion" is not very useful, what word would you use for people that have a belief in a supernatural being that desires certain conduct or acknowledgments from them?

 

[Ratman_tf]

Oh I'm sorry, how about if I rephrase that and say most "Atheists" who post on this forum? Would that make a difference? Geeze, you almost got me into believing there are two separate and distinct animals here!

*Edit*

Mecrutio already addressed the problem with your post. It was the term "believe" that punked it.

 

[epepke]

Interesting question. I have never heard a Buddhist interpretation of the theory of evolution. I would think though that they could embrace it even more easily that Judeo-Christian-Islamists.

One idea in Buddhism is that "It's all an illusion." Another is the "perfecting soul reincarnating." I can intuit a line of reasoning that would predict a new form of life whenever karmic selection demands one. A "Changing Forms within the Illusion" theory seems easier to explain in Hinduism and Buddhism than "Where did the Dinosaurs Go" theory in western religion.

I'd guess that someone who believed in reincarnation would eventually come face-to-face with a "soul counting" problem. After all, what creatures have souls? Although I think the most honest Buddhists are detached to the point where they will eat anything, many of them make a big issue about not eating animals. Which would mean that plants do not have souls, and presumably prokaryotes, viruses, and cyanobacteria wouldn't either. However, since there was a time when there were no eukaryotes, let alone animals, where did all the souls come from? And if they came from somewhere, isn't this not the same as being reincarnated?

Inquiring minds don't care, but it's kind of fun to talk about.

 

[Iacchus]

One idea in Buddhism is that "It's all an illusion." Another is the "perfecting soul reincarnating." I can intuit a line of reasoning that would predict a new form of life whenever karmic selection demands one. A "Changing Forms within the Illusion" theory seems easier to explain in Hinduism and Buddhism than "Where did the Dinosaurs Go" theory in western religion.

Hey, you see. I'm not the only one who's the least bit wacko. So, is life just an illusion, or not?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Please list this set of beliefs, as you see them.

To pretend that a stance is devoid of axiom is either ignorant or disingenuous.

One obvious belief held by most atheist is the conviction (belief) that insufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a belief in deity. A second, held by many, is the belief that induction is valid, as is methodological naturalism. A third is that revelation is an invalid protocol for the acquisition of knowledge.

 

[Mercutio]

To pretend that a stance is devoid of axiom is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Remember, though, that this "stance" is defined negatively--not by what it believes, but by what it does not. There may be many positively defined subgroups which hold particular views, but the group "atheist" is defined, as Stimpy pointed out earlier, by the fact that they are not theists.

One obvious belief held by most atheist is the conviction (belief) that insufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a belief in deity. A second, held by many, is the belief that induction is valid, as is methodological naturalism. A third is that revelation is an invalid protocol for the acquisition of knowledge.

Thank you. (see how easy it was, Iacchus?)

On first reading, I agree wholeheartedly with your first belief here. That would seem to be the defining characteristic of atheism (although I would think that this may differ depending on whether one came to atheism after first being a believer, or simply never believed in the first place. The latter might never have even thought about whether the evidence is sufficient or not.)

The second...I would like to see you explain that a bit further; I don't (on first reading) see it as a necessary aspect of atheism. Same for the third, actually, and again I would like to see your further thoughts on it.

I do see two and three as common, especially here on the forum, but as they are also common among believers, I don't know to what extent they may be seen as a defining set of beliefs for atheists.

Again, though, thank you very much for the list.

 

[daenku32]

For those who say "Atheism" (or disbelief in a God) is enough to describe it as "religious":

Is a tree Religious? It certainly doesn't seem to believe in a God. Any at all.