skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Atheists today subscribe to a variety of philosophies, ideologies, and viewpoints. The critiques which any one atheist makes of religion, theism, or politics can reasonably be deconstructed to get at that atheist's own personal viewpoint. Their viewpoint can also be examined to get a better understanding of why they don't believe in any gods and why they reject the religious traditions of their culture. At no point, though, will such critiques tell us anything about mere atheism by itself. Link
33 comments:
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. The gnu-atheist movement ties in atheism as the outcome of skepticism and rational thinking (and they're right), but that doesn't mean that all or even most atheists have gone through that kind of critical thought process. And being an atheist says nothing about any of the other views a person may hold.
The author sounds like a Platonist holding that there is such a thing as "atheism" that is not a viewpoint and is independent of anyone holding it.
I'm a Platonist too. I'm sure glad we have Plato in our western tradition paving the way for such lines of thought.
And in other news, its just a big coincidence that atheism is so significant in some cultures but not others.
but at the same time people seem to believe that the "essence" of their beliefs and practices are "pure." They believe that their religion can be traced directly back to God in some sense and thus does constitute a transcendental viewpoint — not from nowhere, but from God, the author of reality itself.
A personal God interacts with people where they are at, culture and all.
Are you a muslim DM? I'd be surprised if you identify with Christianity. No Christian would threaten the lost with crucifixion. That is just an insult to our Lord.
No kidding!
Neither is Jesus nor Our Father in Heaven. But the door to repentence, life eternal and healing from God is open to you.
Nonsense. To say that atheism as such, as distinguished from the atheism of any particular atheist, isn't culturally conditioned is meaningless, since no idea qua idea is culturally conditioned; only people who hold ideas are, and plenty of atheists qua atheists are culturally conditioned.
I fail to see how this is debunking Christianity?
Dennis,
1. Romans 12:19.
2. Although I think you're a moron, you're right about Rob R.
gearhed
you are going to be executed today...
"It is mine to avenge; I will repay"
exactly...
my name is a consequence of your actions
DENNIS = SINNED
DM = Demon Mind
or perhaps Demon-Infested Mind
(but that would be DIM)
I actually resent there even being such a term as "atheism." There's no set of core values, beliefs, or philosophies other than not believing in a deity.
Atheists are a product of their times just as theists are. Nobody escapes their cultural influences completely. If we've been influenced it's as much by the idiocy of the current crop of extremist views as by science, "liberalism" or elite education. (OMG THINKING!!! RUN!!!!)
Having seen the rise of Scientology, Jim Jones, and the Branch Davidians, it's easy to imagine what it was like when the world's major religions started. They were just more successful.
What if there had been a Paul spreading the "word" of Jim Jones? If one guy being in a tomb for a few days is a sacrifice, what was Jim Jones & his people's sacrifice?
What if only a few people could read... not *would* read.... and this Paul guy had control over the scribes and readers of the world? What if the government mandated that Paul's version of Jonesism should be the official religion of the country and all who didn't adhere to it would be put to death?
It could happen.
Ooh, scary...
ladyatheist... you openly defy God and you will be exterminated...
DM, you openly defy The Buddha and you will return as a cockroach and be exterminated over and over and over. On the other hand, you will survive the coming nuclear holocaust.
"Goethe was one of the key figures of German literature and the movement of Weimar Classicism in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; this movement coincides with Enlightenment, Sentimentality (Empfindsamkeit), Sturm und Drang and Romanticism. The author of the scientific text Theory of Colours, his influential ideas on plant and animal morphology and homology were extended and developed by 19th century naturalists including Charles Darwin.[3][4]"
Interesting...
More...
"Goethe had a persistent dislike of the church, characterizing its history as a "hotchpotch of fallacy and violence""
Indeed.
Quoting atheists about atheism in order to prove that atheism is superior to theism is the very height of hubris.
Theism --> The statement "God exists" is true.
Atheism --> The statement "God exists" is false.
Atheism is the rejection of belief in god but the reasons for this can be many. However defining atheism as a lack of belief is clearly inadequate because it leads to absurd results.
1. Atheism is a lack of belief in god.
2. This table lacks belief in god.
Therefore this table is an atheist.
One cannot define a thing by what it is not *only*.
No Christian would threaten the lost with crucifixion.
No, you just threaten them with eternal damnation.
Brenda,
I do kinda think it should be self-evident that the issue of belief, disbelief, and non-belief would only be relevant to entities capable of belief.
On the other hand, your point isn't missed either. There are lots of things I don't believe in besides God, but I don't go around calling myself, say, an a-bug-eyed-aliens-from-Alpha-Centauri-ist. I think it has a lot to do with societal expectations. We're not expected to believe in the aliens, so we don't have to make a point of not believing. The overwhelming majority of people on this planet, on the other hand, believe in some kind of deity and expect that everyone else does. For that reason we feel it's important to make the point that we don't. If the day comes when the belief in God, gods, or goddesses dies out altogether, the word "atheist" will probably vanish from the lexicon.
Brenda, I have to take issue with your definitions:
Theism --> The statement "God exists" is true.
Atheism --> The statement "God exists" is false.
Christians and Hindus are both theists but their "God" is different. They both will say, "God exists" but have radically different concepts about who the deity is.
So, wouldn't it be more correct to say:
Theism --> The statement "a god or gods exists" is true.
Atheism --> The statement "a god or gods exists" is false.
The prefix a- before a word is an adequate way of defining "not *only*."
Atheism is not culturally, historically conditioned. Couldn't have expressed it better myself. Though the obverse can't be claimed, i.e. theism is not culturally conditioned, although the antecedents for belief in the supernatural may well have been built into our genetic predisposition, but for an entirely different purpose, such as the survival mechanism.
Religion is essentially social, in both senses of the word. It is an activity that humans do together, it is created, maintained, and perpetuated by human group behaviour. It is also social in the sense that it extends that sociality beyond the human world, to a [putative] realm of non-human spectral agents who also, according to believers, interact with us socially. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a club.
It's and oldie but a goodie, they say an atheist is a person with no invisible means of support.
It seems to me this form of knowledge [the christianies in this case] rather, has been repeated so often, for so long down history's path they have acquired the status of factoid, and unfortunately indistinguishable from fact as generally understood by the average person. The learning pattern from childhood howls enculturation and indoctrination, a process of imparting doctrine in a non-critical way, as in catechism.
They say, repeat something often enough it begins to evolve a life of its own.
Surely the religiose are aware of this, no?
Cheers
If atheism isn't culturally conditioned (a decidedly vague phrase, but let's go with it), then why write books promoting atheism, author a blog promoting atheism, encourage debates about atheism, write editorials about atheism, form atheist associations and societies, and so on? Um, this is all uncontroversially *cultural*, and plenty of people (I'm speaking anecdotally here) are influenced by it. Just consider how many atheists are atheists because they uncritically read and therefore swallow the fourth rate arguments that the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens make. Consider how many people become atheists in college after hearing not an argument, but the ridicule of a professor or of classmates. Consider how many people become atheists because they get the impression that it's what all the really smart people are. If all those aren't instances of "cultural conditioning," then I don't know what is. I'm sorry, but the claim that atheism is not "culturally conditioned" is quite simply a joke. (I addressed, in my last post, the horrible argument that atheism isn't culturally conditioned because we can distinguish atheism from atheists.)
"Atheism is the rejection of belief in god but the reasons for this can be many. However defining atheism as a lack of belief is clearly inadequate because it leads to absurd results."
I agree, Brenda.
For example, suppose the Pope were to suffer a severe brain injury such that he became incapable of holding beliefs. Would it be reasonable to speak of the Pope's atheism? Of course not. Once you realize why this is riduculous, and start to sort out all its problems and to untangle all the issues it raises, you see why atheism cannot be defined as a mere lack of belief. (E.g., a lack of belief can be neither true nor false; a lack of belief can be neither rational nor irrational; a lack of belief is merely an account of one's psychology; a lack of belief in X is indistinguishable from a lack of belief in Y *unless* positive beliefs are also taken into account; etc.)
"Atheism is not culturally, historically conditioned."
This statement is false. We can easily see why simply by having an even superficial knowledge of the history of how people have used the word.
Early 2nd century Christians were called atheists because they denied belief in the religion of dominant Roman culture. Spinoza (and Einstein) were called atheists because they denied belief in the religion of the dominant culture. In the case of Spinoza his Jewish culture rejected his panentheism (and more or less the same for Einstein).
Today many people who call themselves atheists mainly reject the Abrahamic traditions but some embrace various forms of paganism or Buddhism while identifying as atheist.
So we can see that the meaning of atheism has changed throughout history and has not been invariant. Something that changes depending on historical and cultural conditions is what is meant by "culturally conditioned".
Atheism is culturally conditioned because what counts as being an atheist has changed as a function of time and place.
Eric said,
"... Just consider how many atheists are atheists because they uncritically read and therefore swallow the fourth rate arguments that the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens make. Consider how many people become atheists in college after hearing not an argument, but the ridicule of a professor or of classmates. Consider how many people become atheists because they get the impression that it's what all the really smart people are."
I realize you were categorizing reasons one might have for embracing atheism that also have cultural components; but there are other reasons one might have as well that one can come by without cultural peer pressure.
For example, I was an atheist even as a 10 year old child, because when I looked at the world I didn't see all the magical stuff they're always talking about in church. In other words, the picture the Christians paint doesn't match observed reality, even to a child (as long as the child wasn't subjected to brainwashing from the cradle forward).
Who was it that said "Give me the child for the first seven years, and I'll give you the man"?
Oh yeah.
It was the Jesuits.
"but there are other reasons one might have as well that one can come by without cultural peer pressure."
Right, but I didn't limit my understanding of "cultural conditioning" to "cultural peer pressure." The article John linked to referenced the cultural conditioning of nineteenth century existentialism, so whatever is meant by "cultural conditioning," it's clearly not limited to peer pressure (though it almost certainly includes it). I was merely referencing the more obvious cases.
"Atheism is culturally conditioned because what counts as being an atheist has changed as a function of time and place."
Brenda, I would disagree with this. I think you're confusing the use of the word 'atheist' or 'atheism' (which certainly has, as you said, changed with the times) with the proper analysis of the concept 'atheist' or 'atheism' understood as someone who in some sense rejects all belief in god or gods (though just what that sense is -- as a lack of belief, as some are arguing, or, as you and I are arguing, as something necessarily more robust then this -- is what is at issue).
(though just what that sense is -- as a lack of belief, as some are arguing, or, as you and I are arguing, as something necessarily more robust *than this -- is what is at issue).
Appreciate the grammar correction, Eric:
than = comparative
then = sequential
(for those of you who think it doesn't matter...)
Mikespeir said .."For that reason we feel it's important to make the point that we don't. If the day comes when the belief in God, gods, or goddesses dies out altogether, the word "atheist" will probably vanish from the lexicon.
Exactly Mikespeir .Its about as culturally conditioned as is extreme interest! some people had in the situation of the Harper Valley PTA .
Without problems! very few even bother to worry enough to even care whats even going down.Which is why historically mostly only those with some past bad experience with aspects faith and religion, were the ones far more likely to take an interest with worring about dealing with the problem.
What pushed more folks! to show direct interest in matters of faith and religion, is far more people have now come to realize! the very far reaching part of aspects of faith has, on all of us and our societies.More folks now realize, it actually effects them and their best interests, whether they actually choose to be involved in it at all, or not.Such is the manipulative danger.
So maybe its culturally contolled in the sense, lately in this modern day culture, its become far more widely obvious! its actually been such a detremental effect on our cultures.
Here's another point: many atheists are atheist because they're naturalists first, and naturalism entails atheism. But naturalism is obviously "culturally conditioned" in the sense the phrase is used in the OP (which, remember, includes nineteenth century existentialism), so it's not the case that atheism *is not* culturally conditioned.
Eric,
You sort of "know" my background...
I don't feel like I've been culturally conditioned. I began to embrace atheism as a ten-year-old child, and I think it had something to do with having heard somewhere that there are people in the world that do not believe in god (that's not enculturation; almost everyone in our small, midwestern town was Christian of one stripe or another. If "enculturation" was the answer, I would be a Christian!).
One of the important events I remember is the death of a 4 1/2 year old girl I knew when I was a child.
She keeled over and died without warning or preamble one day.
As it turns out, she had an aneurysm in her aorta that burst, and she died almost instantly.
There's no excuse for this.
Post a Comment