Talk:Atheism/Archive4

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 February 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, (new)(back)

[edit] Atheism as an organized religion

I would like have a word about the paragraph "Atheism as an organized religion"

This paragraph explains an argument often used by atheists in discussions. Namely that atheism can not be associated with any bad acts because "evils done throughout history are not inextricably fused with the values of atheism in reality." This is the case because;

  1. it is a lack of beliefs
  2. atheists are not an organized group.

Therefore blaming them of evil would be an association fallacy.

It is implied that religion however can be associated with bad acts because:

  1. it does shares beliefs
  2. religion is organized

Therefore its actions can be explained as resulting from these beliefs and from the organization.


I'm thinking this method is too scholastic and disconnected from reality. To me it misinterprets both religion and atheism.


A religion like Christianity does indeed share some beliefs. Belief in the trinity, a moral code, the importance of scripture...

At the same time, there are many different Christianities. They have different interpretations of the trinity, disagreements on what moral rule is most important (compare liberation theology with fundamentalism for example), different opinions on how to interpret scripture (allegorical vs literal),...


Christianity also comes in many different structured organizations and less structured movements. However, one is also able to believe in the shared beliefs of Christianity but refrain from joining a church in the same way an atheist does not need to be part of a structured organization to call himself an atheist.


Blaming Christianity for a bad act is therefore only possible when it is either the logical result of the small set of shared beliefs or that all organizations are doing the same thing. Which will on practically all accounts lead to a fallacy of association as well.

It still remains possible to blame certain Christian organizations or movements for doing something wrong. Or to disapprove of a religious tenet brought into practice in some way or another by certain Christian groups. For example, robbing homosexuals of certain rights by fundamentalists.


Atheism it is said is merely a lack of belief. Like not collecting stamps is a hobby. I claim it is not like that at all, but rather like not believing in communism in the Soviet Union. Because society doesn't care about your hobbies, it does care whether you believe in God. What I'm trying to say is that the difference between a lack of believe or a believe essentially does not exist, when it has consequences as a result. To not believe is most of the times an active thought, an active choice. Unlike the choice of not collecting stamps. Unless you're part of a stamp collecting cult.


The second point, claims that atheism is not a structural organization. Still, atheist organizations do exist. Many even feel the need to actively spread atheism. (Something that btw can't be explained if atheism is merely the lack of belief in something). The only way this argument rings true is in the same way Christianity isn't one organization that comprises all the Christians. There is indeed no organization that comprises all atheists, and which can be blamed for actions done by atheists. Of course unlike Christianity, the majority of atheist are not part of a structural organization. But the only difference it seems, is the ratio.


Throughout history, atheism has been composed of different movements that add moral, political, social and cultural implications to this simple lack of beliefs. In the same way these has been added to the Christian shared beliefs by Christian movements.

For example:

  • Certain ideas are shared by a majority of "New Atheists" like evolution and generally a pro science attitude.
  • Atheists during the French Revolution shared anticlerical, liberal, revolutionary ethics
  • Atheists during the Russian revolution shared anticlerical, Marxist, revolutionary ethics.

Their atheism inspired these ideas and these ideas in their turn inspired atheism.

Therefore, in my view, the killings of priests during the French Revolution (Though the French Revolution was mainly Deist) and the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Soviet Russia can as a matter of fact be blamed on an atheist movement bound in time and space (so not atheism as a whole). The deaths under Stalinism, or the French terreur can of course still not be blamed on an atheist movement. These deaths had many, many different reasons. To blame these on atheism would indeed be the same as to blame them on Stalin's mustache or Robespierre's wig.

But the idea that atheism is some kind of purely rational disbelief disconnected from the real world should be put in the trashcan.

In fact, I think an atheist movement would be useless without an ideology connected with it. If it didn't had that, it wouldn't even matter if there was indeed no God.


While it may seem this way, this is not an attempt to equalize religion with atheism. It is only an attempt to bring atheism to the plain of real life. — Unsigned, by: 109.131.4.141 / talk / contribs

Have you seen our article on doxastic voluntarism? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Look, 109.131.4.141, nobody here is trying to argue against Christianity on the basis of what some Christians did (such as "evils done throughout history" or whatever). That would be silly. You may have seen such arguments from random atheists here and there, but you probably haven't seen it in this article. So no need to take the discussion down such a silly route.
In the end, there are many types of Christians just like there are many types of Atheists. And yes, there are various organizations and isolated people for both (not a far stretch to imagine a lone Christian not part of any church, but believing in Jesus). Thus it would be silly in both cases to accuse the label on the basis of the actions of some of those who happen to be eligible for the label.
But the difference is that you have to be introduced to Christian belief to be Christian, whereas with Atheism it suffices to not have been raised under any specific belief at all. Thus Atheism is not a religion. That was all the section was trying to say, not really much more. Nullahnung (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


I realize I did read some things in the paragraph that I made up from assumptions of atheists I have.
Just a thing, you say, you have to be introduced to Christian beliefs be a Christian. That's certainly true, whether you are introduced to them unwillingly, or seek them out willingly. But, in today's society, doesn't that count for atheism as well? In some sort of fantasy conception of the first men one might assume that they were born and lived as atheists. Even then, they still felt the need (be it out of material, societal or biological conditions) to invent religious thoughts. In today's society, religious thought surrounds us, and many have to be introduced to atheist ideas to become an atheist. People don't become atheists by flashes of sudden rational thought. It is after all a simple idea.
Anyway, I guess the article is fine as it this. This comment of mine can be removed. — Unsigned, by: 109.131.4.141 / talk / contribs

[edit] Words

'Nullifidian' is a posh version of atheist.

Is there a version of 'yottacryptohypopseudohypercaesaropapaloanarchodextrolaevelozeptoantidisestablishmentarianism that can be applied to atheism?— Unsigned, by: 171.33.222.26 / talk / contribs

The autobot IP does not 'match' that of the machine used. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Succinct definition of atheism?

Hello,

I'm currently editing the Wikipedia 'atheism' article, and came up with this definition of atheism. I'm not arguing anything, I just wanted to have your thoughts on this.

Atheism is not a 'belief': it is a position that, due to a lack of evidence about the existence of any deities, sees no reason to confirm or deny that any deities exist. In other words, atheists do not accept affirmations (about any gods) without proof, and in absence of this, do not even consider the question (about the existence of any gods) valid or worth considering.

The above is pure atheism. The term 'gnostic' is used to provide variations on this theme: a 'gnostic atheist' is one who affirms that there are no gods (and this is arguably a belief); an agnostic atheist is one who, dispite the fact that he sees no evidence for any god(s), considers the question of there being (a) god(s), but won't (or thinks he "can't") make an affirmation either way.
—THEPROMENADER 18:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for a great website! SirSefu (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of ways to look at the issue but I would say that your first paragraph is mostly correct though I would substitute "evidence" for "proof".
I'm not entirely sure that athiests do not consider the question of the existence of god worth considering. It's something that many are quite vocal about so they obviously think it's worth considering at some level - so your final section is, I would venture, about Apatheism.
As far as your second paragraph is concerned you are really getting into shades of meaning which probably shouldn't be part of the prime definition. For example there are agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheists.
But all this is my personal opinion and I am not speaking on behalf of the website in any way. Cheers.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No, thanks for your input. You're right, the 'without considering the question' part could be taken away, it complicates things.
What I'm trying to do is to determine a "base meaning" to atheism... IMHO it could be simply 'living without god(s)' with no added meaning.
The added meaning, only comes with whatever one chooses to add to it... 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' (in their original base meaning of 'knowledge' and 'without knowledge', and a consideration of the question 'are there god(s)?) would mean, as 'gnostic atheist', 'living withought god(s) with a knowledge (is this even possible?) that there are no god(s)', and 'agnostic atheist' would be 'living without god(s), but doesn't (or thinks he can't) know either way'.
Perhaps with the 'not even considering the question' we are going into realms above simple atheism, aka 'the rejection of affirmations without proof' that could englobe most everything. If there were a title for that, I would take it.
Anyhow, thanks for your input, cheers ; ) SirSefu (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not even sure that any mention of "living without" is necessary. Take Bigfoot.
I don't believe that there is a giant hairy simian hiding somewhere in the countryside. So I'm an "Abigfootist" - the lack of evidence means that I can reasonably reject the proposition "bigfoot exists".
But I also accept that I could be wrong - though I think it's pretty unlikely. But evidence would persuade me. So, in one sense I'm also a Bigfoot agnostic.
There is no real difference in the way I think about Bigfoot or God. And any reference to "living without God" would make as much sense to me as "living without Bigfoot". So atheism and agnosticism are by no means exclusive - one speaks to belief and the other to knowledge.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with you! It does annoy me to no end when people use 'agnostic' on its own as if it means something.
By 'living without god' I meant 'not a thought paid to (even the question of) (a) god(s)', but there has to be a more succinct way of saying that. SirSefu (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Disinterested?--Miekal 18:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Apatheism Nullahnung (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support