Thread: The Myth of Atheism

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The label "atheism" is a powerful bit of rhetoric. It allows atheists to continuously fall back on the insistence that they are making no positive claims, while forcing others into either a posture of rational proof or an admission that the failure to adopt such a posture is itself a form of atheism.

Behind this seemingly insubstantial banner, however, march row upon row of positive claims and assumptions which go entirely unexamined so long as everyone keeps feinting at the flag:

1. Materialism
2. Existential Nihilism
3. Determinism
4. Rationalism
5. Scientific Positivism

The above array of beliefs is known in the arts as Modernism, a paradigm going on four generations out of date. To sum it up, it's the assertion that we live in a strictly physical, rigidly determined universe with no purpose or meaning, and that society should be organized according to rational principles arrived at by experimentation without regard for tradition.

I have a problem with the above part. I'm not an atheist (I do not believe there is no God) but I am certainly an existentialist and your claim that we believe in a universe without purpose or meaning is false.

Existentialism believes we cannot know what the purpose or meaning is. Our awareness can only be aware of what exists, not what the point behind its existence is. Existentialism teaches one to give up their clinging to a purpose or meaning, it does not teach that purpose and meaning or immaterial things do not exist.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I have a problem with the above part. I'm not an atheist (I do not believe there is no God) but I am certainly an existentialist and your claim that we believe in a universe without purpose or meaning is false.

Existentialism believes we cannot know what the purpose or meaning is. Our awareness can only be aware of what exists, not what the point behind its existence is. Existentialism teaches one to give up their clinging to a purpose or meaning, it does not teach that purpose and meaning or immaterial things do not exist.

Existential Nihilism on the other hand finds existence meaningless and purposeless by nature. The term "Nihilism" in general refers to absence, lack and void.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Existential Nihilism on the other hand finds existence meaningless and purposeless by nature. The term "Nihilism" in general refers to absence, lack and void.

Could you explain how Existential got glommed onto Nihilism? Existentialism, at its very core, does not attempt to claim what is true about "nature."

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Could you explain how Existential got glommed onto Nihilism? Existentialism, at its very core, does not attempt to claim what is true about "nature."

Or you could google? Existential Nihilism is nihilism with regard to existential concerns, not Existentialism + Nihilism.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Or you could google? Existential Nihilism is nihilism with regard to existential concerns, not Existentialism + Nihilism.

Very well, let me put it this way. Your claim that an objectively meaningless universe is therefore only meaningless is false.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Paging Doctor Freud...

Indeed. You might want to have a visit.

Doh!

I am an atheist, but not a materialist. So if I went around vocally identifying myself as an atheist but believing in a non-material universe and falling back on the label of atheist whenever someone pointed out I had a belief, that would be intellectually dishonest. There is nothing wrong with having a belief or an assumption about the world, but to hide behind the label of atheism to defend your beliefs is wrong. That is why I don't advertise so much that I am an atheist. Well, I don't identify with that. Because there is nothing to identify with regarding atheism.

BTW, Buddhism is not an ascetic religion. It teaches the "middle-way" to avoid any extreme fanatical ideas such as over-indulging vs. abstaining. Emotional/mental BALANCE is the ideal to transcend suffering. There is a point though when the logical conclusion of "no sexual misconduct" includes no objectifying a sexual partner in order to get some kind of personal fulfillment rather than a mutual enjoyable and equal exchange of energy as an expression of love. There is something degrading about treating a person like a thing, but sometimes also something sexy for both participants. If we held out for that ideal most of the world would be celibate. So, for monks and nuns many are celibate for that reason. But there are sexual rituals in Vajrayana Buddhism for advanced monks and nuns in order to liberate psycho-bio-energy.

But, of course an atheist can belief in using sex to liberate psycho-bio-energy but then they are not a materialist. However, somehow, like we are discussing, atheism got identified with the worldview that Taosaur (with penetrating insight) is revealing. The materialists have tainted atheism just like I would be tainting atheism to use the label as a place to keep my a-atheist beliefs. SO to be honest, in most discussions the label of atheist should not come up. Or theist for that matter, unless the existence of a deity is being discussed. If we are discussing a topic regarding material or non-material reality or inherent meaning or point to existence, even then "atheism" or "theism" or "unbeliever" or "believer" should not come up.

Everybody has a worldview. Everybody has beliefs. Everybody has assumptions. Everybody has faith in something. It seems to me that many, if not most, atheists are in denial of these truths. They are quick to point out the unquestioned beliefs of others but refuse to question their own beliefs, or even acknowledge that they have any beliefs. They seem to think that what they believe is "fact" while other's are "superstition" or "fallacy". They don't "believe", they "know". This is the mistake they are pointing out that many theists fall for.

That is why the whole spectrum of belief and disbelief is stupid. To even identify yourself by what you believe or don't believe causes violence and ignorance. To be attached to your point on the line of belief and disbelief makes you rigid and close-minded.

So, self-searching, total honesty with one's self is encouraged. Socrates's "Know thyself" is important for atheists and theists alike. Know thine worldview, know which are assumptions. I think it was Socrates (but could be wrong) who said "The more I know the more I know that I know nothing." or something like that. We live in a void of knowledge and we fill that void with beliefs, whether we are atheist or not. Sure, there is a little knowledge that we have acquired either personally or as a species, but it is nothing compared to the infinite mystery that surrounds us. So we are all guilty of believing in things that we have no reason for believing in order to survive and function without panicking. Everybody filters even their perception of the world through a lens of their own worldview, so that only what conforms to our expectations is perceives. If we didn't, we would scream and cry and fall unconscious because reality is overwhelming. Even the greatest scientific discoveries are arrived at gradually, being slowly arrived at over generations, because we are not able to observe reality directly and objectively.

So to say that you do not have beliefs is wrong, and to say that you have no beliefs because you are an atheist is also wrong. To say that you are an atheist because you do not believe in a deity is correct. But it would be better just to focus on true knowledge rather than identifying with beliefs or dis-beliefs. That is why science is so effective. Beliefs and dis-beliefs are irrelevant.

I missed this bit because Photolysis doesn't use quotes properly I may also have grown bored and wandered off in pursuit of something shinier...

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Too bad the Abrahamic religions already exert a great deal of influence politically in modern society around the globe. Much of the debates do occur on this simply because it's more pertinent. At best us discussing the merits and limitations of say, materialism, is an interesting philosophical discussion taking place in an ivory tower.

The leap from {scriptural literalism in Abrahamic faiths} to {Abrahamic faiths in general} is shorter than the leap to {religion in general}, but still unwarranted. The vast majority of adherents of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are non-Fundamentalists, instinctively approaching the texts and teachings of their faith with some sense of context and proportion even if their understanding of the faith and grounding in its literature are not terribly thorough or sophisticated. The credibility and influence that Fundamentalists have on the faiths in general, and hence on the faiths' impact upon society, depends very much on whether the 'casual believer' feels more solidarity with secular/interfaith society in viewing the Fundamentalists as nutters, or more solidarity with the nutters in viewing everyone else as enemies of the faith.

Therein lies the pertinent, pragmatic value in pointing out that "atheism vs. religion" debates are founded on a false dichotomy opposing Rational Materialism to Fundamentalism while ignoring other, far more prevalent varieties of secularity and religion. When either Fundamentalists or Rational Materialists succeed in selling this narrative of conflict to more moderate believers and nonbelievers, it polarizes society and increases the influence of Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic extremists considerably more than it increases the influence of the Materialists, simply because they are operating in a smaller, less cohesive network. It does, however, increase the influence, wealth and power of the most strident Materialists a little bit, at the cost of muffling all moderates or even converting them for the opposition.

In this light, the actions of those who claim religion is holding back society are, themselves, obstructions to progress. It's also true that those who claim secularity is decaying society are themselves agents of hostility, distrust and factionalization. These positions are complementarily corrosive.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

... I just decide that it's less likely than the alternative.

A few (intellectually) fatal assumptions; that you are capable of accurately deciding what alternative for the true nature of reality is more likely, that you are even faintly aware of the spectrum of alternatives that you have to decide about.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

A few (intellectually) fatal assumptions; that you are capable of accurately deciding what alternative for the true nature of reality is more likely, that you are even faintly aware of the spectrum of alternatives that you have to decide about.

I'm not sure if this is your point or not, but those issues are irrelevant because they have no independent existence; the alternatives and likelihoods are only created and supposed by the mind in the first place. Unless perhaps you think there are infinite true realities, but I think that sidesteps the point...

When one looks at the world, there is an array of possibilities that could be behind that world arising as it does. Pure materialism and god are only two points on the full spectrum of things that could be the cause of the reality that an individual sees before them on a constant basis. The full range of possibilities are neither entirely created "in the mind" or intrinsic to reality itself, unless you believe that you have invented the idea of god (or materialism) yourself. Even if one were to define "in the mind" as meaning "in the mind of the human species", no individual can claim to be aware of every idea postulated about the true nature and origin of reality, or to accurately judge which of these ideas is more likely.

Unless of course you are arguing that reality has no intrinsic nature and that all ideas and likelihoods about it are created 'in the mind', which of course would just be another point on the spectrum of possibilities...

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

A few (intellectually) fatal assumptions; that you are capable of accurately deciding what alternative for the true nature of reality is more likely, that you are even faintly aware of the spectrum of alternatives that you have to decide about.

Don't get too hung up on my wording of "alternative", singular, and take it to mean I am ignorant of alternative ideas. It was merely an example.

I also don't see where accuracy enters into the picture; I have no way of knowing whether that view is accurate, or whether my assumptions are correct. It's merely a subjective opinion.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I missed this bit because Photolysis doesn't use quotes properly I may also have grown bored and wandered off in pursuit of something shinier...

Yeah, I get lazy when quoting sometimes.

In this light, the actions of those who claim religion is holding back society are, themselves, obstructions to progress. It's also true that those who claim secularity is decaying society are themselves agents of hostility, distrust and factionalization. These positions are complementarily corrosive.

Reducing any complex issue down to an absolute is never helpful, but I suspect that most of the people making claims like "religion holds back society" are being facetious or using hyperbole (or make a legitimate point, in context), whereas I've seen people make claims about how secularity is causing societal breakdown who do appear to be completely serious.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

... but I suspect that most of the people making claims like "religion holds back society" are being facetious or using hyperbole ...

We must live in completely different universes.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When one looks at the world, there is an array of possibilities that could be behind that world arising as it does. Pure materialism and god are only two points on the full spectrum of things that could be the cause of the reality that an individual sees before them on a constant basis. The full range of possibilities are neither entirely created "in the mind" or intrinsic to reality itself, unless you believe that you have invented the idea of god (or materialism) yourself. Even if one were to define "in the mind" as meaning "in the mind of the human species", no individual can claim to be aware of every idea postulated about the true nature and origin of reality, or to accurately judge which of these ideas is more likely.

Unless of course you are arguing that reality has no intrinsic nature and that all ideas and likelihoods about it are created 'in the mind', which of course would just be another point on the spectrum of possibilities...

For example: the two common ideas of the origin of the Universe: God created it or the Big Bang. Both seem very unlikely. And in the past the idea of a God creating the Universe seemed much more likely than the Universe just exploded out of a singularity for no known reason. Both ideas are pretty much just as ridiculous as each other. So to judge an idea by how much it makes sense to our feeble little brains that are born and die within this Universe IS a fallacy. To have beliefs is inevitable, and nothing wrong with it, but no belief is more right or wrong than any other. They are not real. Every belief is a lie. They are for convenience.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When one looks at the world, there is an array of possibilities that could be behind that world arising as it does. Pure materialism and god are only two points on the full spectrum of things that could be the cause of the reality that an individual sees before them on a constant basis. The full range of possibilities are neither entirely created "in the mind" or intrinsic to reality itself, unless you believe that you have invented the idea of god (or materialism) yourself. Even if one were to define "in the mind" as meaning "in the mind of the human species", no individual can claim to be aware of every idea postulated about the true nature and origin of reality, or to accurately judge which of these ideas is more likely.

Ok, but my question was basically about your last line there, on what relevance it bears? Is not judging and supposing ideas one of the fundamental functions of the mind? Thus, there are virtually infinite alternatives created in the mind and yet the mind can narrow them down, make a judgement and draw a conclusion. How accurate that is depends on a lot of variables, yet being aware of every possible alternative may not even be necessary.

Unless of course you are arguing that reality has no intrinsic nature and that all ideas and likelihoods about it are created 'in the mind', which of course would just be another point on the spectrum of possibilities...

No, I'd never argue that "reality has no intrinsic nature," but perhaps that ideas and likelihoods - in this case - alternatives, are only relevant from the mind itself. If not, how is your view here not backfiring on you already? I don't see the point of arguing solely from a perspective of possibilities; it's beginning to seem like you're saying it is impossible to accurately know anything and/or find true meaning in the universe.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

For example: the two common ideas of the origin of the Universe: God created it or the Big Bang. Both seem very unlikely. And in the past the idea of a God creating the Universe seemed much more likely than the Universe just exploded out of a singularity for no known reason. Both ideas are pretty much just as ridiculous as each other. So to judge an idea by how much it makes sense to our feeble little brains that are born and die within this Universe IS a fallacy. To have beliefs is inevitable, and nothing wrong with it, but no belief is more right or wrong than any other. They are not real. Every belief is a lie. They are for convenience.

Beliefs may not be so discreetly "right and wrong" yes, but beliefs can still be more truthful than others under analysis, and so some beliefs are not as convenient as others. Thusly, I do not see how beliefs are "not real" or how "every belief is a lie"; in any case it's helpful that they should not be seen as reality itself, but neither should they be the other extreme. Maybe this is what you mean already but I dislike your words...

Has anyone corrected the OP yet?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

To have beliefs is inevitable, and nothing wrong with it, but no belief is more right or wrong than any other. They are not real. Every belief is a lie. They are for convenience.

I know that it's a belief but I believe that we can and should judge beliefs based on the amount of suffering which the create and relieve in the world.

Originally Posted by Somii

Has anyone corrected the OP yet?

There have been a few attempts. Care to toss yours on the bonfire?

Originally Posted by Somii

Has anyone corrected the OP yet?

I noted that Determinism is not as ubiquitous in vocal "atheists" as the other positions mentioned. Better?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I know that it's a belief but I believe that we can and should judge beliefs based on the amount of suffering which the create and relieve in the world.

This is like the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." True, suffering is a symptom of a belief gone bad. If you are suffering, you can propbably trace it to a wrong belief. The belief causes suffering for the believer, then the believer interacts with others and infects them with negativity. So, I agree with you that some beliefs can help you heal from suffering. In this case it is like using a thorn to remove a thorn in your foot. So, the belief is false, but it is beneficial.

Dannon are you going to respond?

What do you mean by "They are not real. Every belief is a lie. They are for convenience" (and "So, the belief is false, but it is beneficial")?

Is there more reasons than just because no belief is right or wrong?

Some are more right than others, or more wrong, but no belief is TRUE, because truth cannot be a belief, but only knowledge. Knowledge and beliefs cannot exist together. If you have a belief, it exists in the place of knowledge. And knowledge is only knowledge when it is personal knowledge. If you accept a statement from someone else as "true" because that person may be an expert or an authority, it is still a belief that you are adopting. Because "you" don't know, you are having faith in someone else's knowledge. Of course, to believe in the theory of relativity may be beneficial to you, or it might not make any difference to you.

That was very well put and I like your reasoning. However, its kind of funny what you did there. You just violated the Law of non-contradiction by suggesting that truth cannot be a belief while at the same moment in the exact same sense, insisting that there is a such thing as believing what you're asserting is indeed true (truth is knowledge). The truth of your own view by doing so, upholds the validity of the law of identity which also validates the law of non-contradiction. In other words you did two things here. 1. You violated and validated the law of non-contradiction in one shot and 2. you're saying that belief is not true while at the same moment demonstrating that belief is indeed true by implying that you believe your statement and your view is true as opposed to false.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That was very well put and I like your reasoning. However, its kind of funny what you did there. You just violated the Law of non-contradiction by suggesting that truth cannot be a belief while at the same moment in the exact same sense, insisting that there is a such thing as believing what you're asserting is indeed true (truth is knowledge). The truth of your own view by doing so, upholds the validity of the law of identity which also validates the law of non-contradiction. In other words you did two things here. 1. You violated and validated the law of non-contradiction in one shot and 2. you're saying that belief is not true while at the same moment demonstrating that belief is indeed true by implying that you believe your statement and your view is true as opposed to false.

That was very well put and I like your reasoning. However, its kind of funny what you did there. You just violated the Law of non-contradiction by suggesting that Dannon Oneironaut violated and validated the Law of non-contradiction in one shot. Maybe you can find out what went wrong?

This post is oddly reminiscence of this one - http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/conspi...ml#post1538976