What's an Atheist?

[Charlemagne_II]

Cold

**More to the point of this thread why don’t atheists have a name to describe this viewpoint and use it? **

What other name is needed than “atheist”? Most people in this forum can tell you not what atheists believe in, but what they don’t believe in. That covers a large ground that needs no name.

No God.
No absolute truth.
No spirit.
No hope of eternal life.
No salvation.
No moral commandments to be obeyed.
No free will.
Etc.

When you add all these things up, they more often than not come under the umbrella of atheism. Atheism is a negative philosophy, despite the protest of those who claim a positive atheism. I ought to know. I was an atheist for a long time and I searched in vain for positive values that would make life more meaningful for me than the empty vessel it had become while I was an atheist.

I have never seen or known a positive atheist. What does he look or sound like? If that’s what you’re asking, it’s a darn good question. Perhaps the answer to that question would help to answer your need to know? But if you’re looking for an atheist equivalent to our Nicene Creed, I doubt if there is one. Atheists can refer to the humanist manifesto, but there is little positive in atheistic humanism that is not also positiver in Christian humanism.

In my experience humanism always professes a higher moral ground than Christianity. But Christianity surely offers a higher moral ground, because the moral ground of atheism ends six feet under.

 

[ColdComfort]

Cold

**More to the point of this thread why don’t atheists have a name to describe this viewpoint and use it? **

What other name is needed than “atheist”? Most people in this forum can tell you not what atheists believe in, but what they don’t believe in. That covers a large ground that needs no name.

No God.
No absolute truth.
No spirit.
No hope of eternal life.
No salvation.
No moral commandments to be obeyed.
No free will.
Etc.

When you add all these things up, they more often than not come under the umbrella of atheism. Atheism is a negative philosophy, despite the protest of those who claim a positive atheism. I ought to know. I was an atheist for a long time and I searched in vain for positive values that would make life more meaningful for me than the empty vessel it had become while I was an atheist.

I have never seen or known a positive atheist. What does he look or sound like? If that’s what you’re asking, it’s a darn good question. Perhaps the answer to that question would help to answer your need to know? But if you’re looking for an atheist equivalent to our Nicene Creed, I doubt if there is one. Atheists can refer to the humanist manifesto, but there is little positive in atheistic humanism that is not also positiver in Christian humanism.

In my experience humanism always professes a higher moral ground than Christianity. But Christianity surely offers a higher moral ground, because the moral ground of atheism ends six feet under.

1. I disagree that all atheists would accept your list of what atheism implies. Thomas Nagel believes in objective moral truths. He also believes in freewill. He has written a very controversial book that disputes Darwinism. None of this is open to discussion here.
2. I would agree that most contemporary atheists I know personally assume, unconsciously often, some form of philosophic materialism.
3. Materialism is the most easily refuted philosophy ever thought by fallen man. There is a reason it makes an appearance in history once in a while but is soon discarded as irrational.
4. If atheists are materialists they should describe themselves as such. If they are not they should adopt another description.
5. I am adopting a policy with people I know and care about [which is everyone] who describe themselves as atheists. “The term means next to nothing” I say. “What exactly do you believe”. The purpose is to force people to examine their opinions instead of shooting peashooters at our Great and True Faith. Maybe some will be be a bit more open-minded.

That’s all for me and that’s all for him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cold
**

1. I disagree that all atheists would accept your list of what atheism implies. Thomas Nagel believes in objective moral truths. He also believes in freewill. He has written a very controversial book that disputes Darwinism. None of this is open to discussion here.**

As I indicated earlier, I think, the generalities I made about atheists were true “more often than not.come under the umbrella of atheism.” I certainly did not mean to imply that all atheists think exactly the same way. Sartre, for example, believed in free will. So did Ayn Rand. But most atheists, from my experience, are deterministic materialists. I have no statistics to back that up. It’s only an educated guess. You’re free to guess otherwise.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m suggesting that those who describe themselves as atheists are either disingenious or need to give their heads a shake and start describing themselves with some positive category.

I don’t label myself as one. Rather it’s a label that others place on me after they find that I am not religious.

So with people I know who describe themselves this way I insist that they describe what they actually believe…]

That sounds like a great strategy when you are engaging in a conversation where people wan to learn about each other. But in the scenarios that I tend to encounter in which some one cares about my religious disposition it seems to be for the sake of in-group out-group classification. Once I’m classified in the out-group the nuances of my self identity and beliefs have in general become a topic of non-interest to the person which I am engaging.

…]before starting a conversation where I defend my Faith. I find this is a good strategy. And an honest one.

I’m not one to go around challenging some one’s religion (I will ask questions to get clarity). Instead I’ve got people (often times strangers) that come to me to try to engage in religious discussions. In more recent times I terminate the conversation post haste. In less recent times I would engage people that asked me questions. It appeared that not being convinced by an argument or making a statement on my stance on a question presented to me could at times be perceived as a personal attack. In the interest of keeping the peace with people I encounter it’s easier to simply not discuss religion, politics, and number of other divisive topics until I know a person better.

Considering a thread like this will go for dozens of pages at a forum like James Randi’s with no conclusive answer, I really doubt you’ll get much consenus from non-atheists.

It’s a question about a spectrum of positions. There will be a spectrum of answers.

 

[polytropos]

What other name is needed than “atheist”? Most people in this forum can tell you not what atheists believe in, but what they don’t believe in. That covers a large ground that needs no name.

No God.
No absolute truth.
No spirit.
No hope of eternal life.
No salvation.
No moral commandments to be obeyed.
No free will.
Etc.

When you add all these things up, they more often than not come under the umbrella of atheism. Atheism is a negative philosophy, despite the protest of those who claim a positive atheism. I ought to know. I was an atheist for a long time and I searched in vain for positive values that would make life more meaningful for me than the empty vessel it had become while I was an atheist.

I have never seen or known a positive atheist. What does he look or sound like? If that’s what you’re asking, it’s a darn good question. Perhaps the answer to that question would help to answer your need to know? But if you’re looking for an atheist equivalent to our Nicene Creed, I doubt if there is one. Atheists can refer to the humanist manifesto, but there is little positive in atheistic humanism that is not also positiver in Christian humanism.

In my experience humanism always professes a higher moral ground than Christianity. But Christianity surely offers a higher moral ground, because the moral ground of atheism ends six feet under.

Atheism is not really a philosophy. It is a metaphysical position on a single issue (whether God exists) so it does not really entail your entire list. There are atheists who would still believe in absolute truth, objective morality, free will, the reality of the mind, etc. But there can also be some vagueness in terminology. An atheist might mean by “objective morality” that there are some precepts which no one should violate (say, do not murder), while “objective morality” for a theist would probably also include the idea that there is something intrinsically and naturally wrong in a given action (which is a claim that one could not, I think, ground materialistically). Even materialists might claim to “believe” in the mind, but that does not mean that they hold that the mind exists but just that it “exists” as defined as a collection of “properties” of the brain, or something similar.

I think such claims might be made because they do make proximate sense. It is sort of like explaining natural phenomena with laws of nature. You have, in a sense, explained a phenomena, so you do, in a way, hold the world to be intelligible. But your explanation is only proximate. If you regard the explanatory laws of nature as brute regularities, then you have not really explained the realities of the phenomena that they govern/describe.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. If atheists are materialists they should describe themselves as such. If they are not they should adopt another description.

Since philosophy isn’t a required part of general public education I would hazard a guess that people generally are not well acquainted with various philosophies to know the catalog philosophical labels that may describe themselves or how their own personal stance on some questions might not conform to the philosophy description that best fits.

 

[ColdComfort]

I don’t label myself as one. Rather it’s a label that others place on me after they find that I am not religious.

Clearly not all people who are non-religious are atheists. Whether the label is imposed by someone on others or as a self-description it is next to useless.

That sounds like a great strategy when you are engaging in a conversation where people wan to learn about each other. But in the scenarios that I tend to encounter in which some one cares about my religious disposition it seems to be for the sake of in-group out-group classification. Once I’m classified in the out-group the nuances of my self identity and beliefs have in general become a topic of non-interest to the person which I am engaging.

People will do that. I experience the same thing.

I’m not one to go around challenging some one’s religion (I will ask questions to get clarity). Instead I’ve got people (often times strangers) that come to me to try to engage in religious discussions. In more recent times I terminate the conversation post haste. In less recent times I would engage people that asked me questions. It appeared that not being convinced by an argument or making a statement on my stance on a question presented to me could at times be perceived as a personal attack. In the interest of keeping the peace with people I encounter it’s easier to simply not discuss religion, politics, and number of other divisive topics until I know a person better.

I work in an highly religiously diverse workplace. I like learning about other people’s religion and if they ask questions about mine I will answer as a matter of information. No place for argument or criticism.

It’s a question about a spectrum of positions. There will be a spectrum of answers.

Exactly! Which is why I refuse to use the term or acknowledge it has much meaning. It’s as if Catholics went around saying they were non-Mormons. Or perhaps I should just describe myself as a non-atheist!

 

[ColdComfort]

Since philosophy isn’t a required part of general public education I would hazard a guess that people generally are not well acquainted with various philosophies to know the catalog philosophical labels that may describe themselves or how their own personal stance on some questions might not conform to the philosophy description that best fits.

But here’s the problem. If someone has thought out issues to the point where they say “I’m an atheist” they should have philosophical grounds for coming to the conclusion and at least some form of positive position of their own. If they don’t I’m afraid disingenious is the word for them. Whether they can express it in terms of an academic school is not my point. They must believe something about the world to come to such a conclusion. In any event most people will think about issues that are considered philosophical whether they are innocent of academics or not. It seeems to be a natural impulse.

 

[Perplexity]

In the philosophy of religion an atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist. The OP seems to suggest that there’s something too minimalist about this description. But, the days when people belonged to entire schools of philosophy have long since passed. Too many minds have entered the fray by this time so that any serious attempt to construct the best evidenced worldview end up the same: chimeras. So, I guess I don’t see the point in expecting atheists to belong to well constructed worldviews.

 

[polytropos]

But here’s the problem. If someone has thought out issues to the point where they say “I’m an atheist” they should have philosophical grounds for coming to the conclusion and at least some form of positive position of their own. If they don’t I’m afraid disingenious is the word for them. Whether they can express it in terms of an academic school is not my point. They must believe something about the world to come to such a conclusion. In any event most people will think about issues that are considered philosophical whether they are innocent of academics or not. It seeems to be a natural impulse.

I think most people in the world, whether atheist or not, have not thought out the large philosophical issues and don’t care to (or, they think they are more easily resolved than they actually are). I have atheist friends who were born to atheist parents and have never even thought that religion should be taken seriously. I have other atheist friends who think that evolution trounces religion. The “atheist” label only describes what they hold on a single issue, not whether they hold it rationally (and the same would be said for the “theist” label).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But here’s the problem. If someone has thought out issues to the point where they say “I’m an atheist” they should have philosophical grounds for coming to the conclusion and at least some form of positive position of their own.

A person may have many of their own positive positions. A positive position on the existence of a god may be one or might not be one of them. I’m getting the impression that you are specifically talking about what some have referred to as a “positive/strong atheist” and not the other variations such as agnostic atheist, apatheism, ignosticism since positive atheism is the only one that makes a positive claim.

Whether they can express it in terms of an academic school is not my point.

My main point here was explaining why people that may have a materialist view might not describe themselves as “materialist.” If some one can’t express their position in terms of an academic school then chances are they will not.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think most people in the world, whether atheist or not, have not thought out the large philosophical issues and don’t care to

I think that most people tend to concentrate on what it takes to get them through their day or week. People tend to specialize in one or a few things and either hire some one or are mediocre at others.

(or, they think they are more easily resolved than they actually are).

See also: Dunning–Kruger effect

I have atheist friends who were born to atheist parents and have never even thought that religion should be taken seriously. I have other atheist friends who think that evolution trounces religion.

I’ve got a friend that went from religious to non-religious. Her daughter (no 15 years of age) has never been inculcated to be on one side or the other on the god-proposition. Her mother decided to leave the issue alone. She wanted what ever side that her daughter fell on to be the daughter’s own position and not something that was forced on her. Up until now religion was a topic that was unimportant to her interactions with her peers.

The mother recently moved her from public school to private school (because the public school could no longer afford to get enough books for the student). At the private school they were given an assignment of writing what they think about God. The girl told the teacher she doesn’t know anything about God and turned in a blank paper. After that the other students (and at least one teacher) labeled her as the non-believer and treat her as part of the out-group. I think the experience may result in her being turned off to ever being motivated to looking into religion any further than she needs to for school assignments.

 

[ColdComfort]

A person may have many of their own positive positions. A positive position on the existence of a god may be one or might not be one of them. I’m getting the impression that you are specifically talking about what some have referred to as a “positive/strong atheist” and not the other variations such as agnostic atheist, apatheism, ignosticism since positive atheism is the only one that makes a positive claim.

My main point here was explaining why people that may have a materialist view might not describe themselves as “materialist.” If some one can’t express their position in terms of an academic school then chances are they will not.

An agnostic should describe themselves as such. It is not the same thing as an atheist. Someone who doesn’t care whether there is a God or not is not an atheist. It describes a psychology condition peculiar to an individual not a rational viewpoint as does your last category. At least so I think. I’ll admit I have never heard the last category before but have heard some of the ideas in the brief link you added.

Your post perhaps supports my argument which is really quite simple. ‘Atheist’ covers so many positions including positions that we would in common usage call religious, such as Buddhism arguably, that it is should not be used. A person who describes themselves as an atheist is generally doing so as a description of a world view not just a belief on one particular point. They are planting a flag and announcing ‘This is where I stand’.

When I say I am a Catholic you know a great deal about my beliefs. Or better, given that Western Catholics are a bit shaky, when I say I am an Orthodox Catholic you know ny world view.

 

[ColdComfort]

In the philosophy of religion an atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist. The OP seems to suggest that there’s something too minimalist about this description. But, the days when people belonged to entire schools of philosophy have long since passed. Too many minds have entered the fray by this time so that any serious attempt to construct the best evidenced worldview end up the same: chimeras. So, I guess I don’t see the point in expecting atheists to belong to well constructed worldviews.

Without arguing the last few sentences of your post I would think this would support a self-description of agnosticism not atheism. Agnosticism means something although like any label, including Catholic, details may differ. Atheism does not in any meaningful way.

 

[ColdComfort]

I think that most people tend to concentrate on what it takes to get them through their day or week. People tend to specialize in one or a few things and either hire some one or are mediocre at others.

See also: Dunning–Kruger effect

I’ve got a friend that went from religious to non-religious. Her daughter (no 15 years of age) has never been inculcated to be on one side or the other on the god-proposition. Her mother decided to leave the issue alone. She wanted what ever side that her daughter fell on to be the daughter’s own position and not something that was forced on her. Up until now religion was a topic that was unimportant to her interactions with her peers.

The mother recently moved her from public school to private school (because the public school could no longer afford to get enough books for the student). At the private school they were given an assignment of writing what they think about God. The girl told the teacher she doesn’t know anything about God and turned in a blank paper. After that the other students (and at least one teacher) labeled her as the non-believer and treat her as part of the out-group. I think the experience may result in her being turned off to ever being motivated to looking into religion any further than she needs to for school assignments.

I think the line taken here by both Catholics and others about the psychology of individuals misses the point. Many people who would call themselves Catholic seem to go through life ‘as if God does not exist’. I am as guilty of this as the next guy. Whetehr some people, without reflection and for what ever reason, adopt a certain religion or non-religious viewpoint is irrelevant.

Such people will continue to use the word ‘atheist’ in an unrefecting way either as a label for others or as a self-description. I object to a term that says something but not much. Simple.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Cold

I object to a term that says something but not much. Simple. **

I don’t agree. The term might not say much, but it implies a great deal more.

I’ll take Scripture for an example of what it implies.

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

 

[inocente]

I think the line taken here by both Catholics and others about the psychology of individuals misses the point. Many people who would call themselves Catholic seem to go through life ‘as if God does not exist’. I am as guilty of this as the next guy. Whetehr some people, without reflection and for what ever reason, adopt a certain religion or non-religious viewpoint is irrelevant.

Such people will continue to use the word ‘atheist’ in an unrefecting way either as a label for others or as a self-description. I object to a term that says something but not much. Simple.

Here in Spain, Congress takes a monthly poll which always includes two questions about religion. The first asks people to say if they are Catholic (70%), other religion (3%), have no belief (16%) or atheist (10%). Presumably you answer “atheist” instead of “no belief” if you positively believe there are no deities. (Percentages are for latest month to be published).

The second question asks religious people how often they attend church/temple. Given the above answers it would be expected that 30% never go to church. In fact it’s 60%, so a lot of those who say they are Catholic never attend Mass.

Imho this shows how hard it is to classify beliefs.

cis.es/cis/opencm/ES/2_bancodatos/estudios/ver.jsp?estudio=13944 (preguntas 35 y 36)

 

[Ranp]

What’s an Atheist?

An atheist is someone who does not follow God and mistakenly believes that they don’t have any religious beliefs. The brick wall atheist run into is that humans are hard-wired for religion. In anthropology Religion is considered a universal feature of human culture. Every culture ever encountered had at least one Languarge, one Economy, forms of Technology, some forms of Kindship, and one or more Religions. In other words it is impossible for a human to not have a religious belief. Atheists might think they are a complete blank in regard to religion but the reality is that Atheism has become their religion. The so-called New Atheism movement by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is indeed a religious movement to the point it resemble the development of an Atheist Theology.

Ran Pleasant

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Ranp

The so-called New Atheism movement by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is indeed a religious movement to the point it resemble the development of an Atheist Theology.**

Their god is named Nogod. They worship Nogod.

 

[polytropos]

I’ve got a friend that went from religious to non-religious. Her daughter (no 15 years of age) has never been inculcated to be on one side or the other on the god-proposition. Her mother decided to leave the issue alone. She wanted what ever side that her daughter fell on to be the daughter’s own position and not something that was forced on her. Up until now religion was a topic that was unimportant to her interactions with her peers.

The mother recently moved her from public school to private school (because the public school could no longer afford to get enough books for the student). At the private school they were given an assignment of writing what they think about God. The girl told the teacher she doesn’t know anything about God and turned in a blank paper. After that the other students (and at least one teacher) labeled her as the non-believer and treat her as part of the out-group. I think the experience may result in her being turned off to ever being motivated to looking into religion any further than she needs to for school assignments.

Hmm. This was never my experience going to a Catholic high school. My group of friends at the time (including myself) was predominantly atheist, and I don’t recall anyone being treated as part of an out-group for their nonbelief. But such experiences are certainly not homogenous.