Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief? (page 24)

quietlyleaving

great thread. well argued essan. my favourite line

It strikes me that making claims that newborns are atheists is a symptom of the atheists zeal to convert the world - now they are conducting forced 'infant baptisms' LOL.

Essan

Terry, if someone doesn't know for sure and can't see a way to know right now, then they are literally Agnostic. So why would they call themselves Atheist, other than through ignorance?

I have a theory as to why, but you won't like it.

I think many are not true Atheists at all, but something like 'biased-Agnostics'. They don't know, and realize they can't know right now if God exists or not. Therefore they are Agnostic, period. However, they don't allow the full inevitable implications of this realization to guide their thinking, either because they can't comprehend them or because they don't want to. Instead, bias induces them to play with false notions of the supposed "probability" of God's nonexistence which, when most of the factors are unknown, as in this case, cannot be reliably established, so such talk of ‘probability’ is a poor disguise for faith and preference based belief. Despite not knowing, and realizing that they can't know, their bias induces them to take a side against Theism. It's a self-contradictory position. The head says "I don't and can't know" but the heart says "Damn those Theists are stupid! I'd love to prove them wrong" or perhaps "I don't know if there is a God but I certainly hope not".

Strict Agnosticism spoils the 'fun' of bias and strong opinion either way, because it constantly points to the futility of these things. But such things are enjoyable to humans. Humans love beliefs and and love taking sides and then attacking the designated 'enemy'. So, frustrated Agnostics take their 'biased-Agnosticism' and drift towards Atheism, where an exciting anti-Theistic carnival is constantly in full swing LOL. Strong anti-theistic preferences and assaults are allowed and encouraged, and from within 'Atheism" these 'biased-Agnostics' attempt to remodel it to suit their preference, and in the process muddy the waters of both Atheism and Agnosticism. They even sometimes attack traditional Atheism and Agnosticism because these, by their very existence, expose this increasingly dominant version of Atheism - which is neither real agnosticism nor real atheism - as being a rather unnecessary and self-contradictory position.

Here's a thought, if this agnostic-flavoured Atheism eventually ousts and replaces traditional atheistic denial completely, as seems inevitable, and if Theism were to similarly soften over time into an agnostic-flavoured Theism-lite, might the two dance around each other ever more closely and eventually meet and everyone agree that they don't know sh** and go and crack a beer with the Agnostics?

Terry

Terry, if someone doesn't know for sure and can't see a way to know right now, then they are literally Agnostic. So why would they call themselves Atheist, other than through ignorance?

I think in most cases the people who identify THEMSELVES as Atheist are provocatively doing so. There is a pejorative defiance as such.

Perhaps not always. But, usually.

But, a person (such as myself) who is externally accused of being an Atheist and who does NOT self-identify in that way would want to clarify.

I wouldn't doubt there are people angry with the very God they profess to NOT believe in.

Perversely, of course.

The only times I encounter discussions of religion or belief which include the term: ATHEIST...are in polemical contexts.

There probably isn't a neutral Atheist out there without some controversy in the air. But, who knows?

Essan

Interesting Terry,

Yeah, there is a rather delicious heretical "bad boy" air about the label "Atheist", I have to admit.

I don't want to come over all 'Taoist' but due to the recent discussions I've been pondering what the various 'camps' of Theist, Agnostic and Atheist bring to life, because it seems that despite our personal preferences and beliefs, or lack thereof, they all end up serving their purpose in the "machinery" of life, so to speak.

What I think Atheism brings is 'heat' and Atheism is the agency which opposes and 'rubs up against' Theism, the resulting friction causing 'heat', energy, passion. Theism and Atheism are the partners in that heat generating 'Tango' and the heat probably fuels change, motion, possibly more rapidly than would otherwise occur.

Agnosticism may be more realistic or truthful, but it's not a very potent agency for change or movement and while that isn't 'right' or 'wrong', life doesn't seem to much care for 'truth", it just seems to want to move, and therefore agencies of motion appear, antagonistic opposites leading to explosive combustion out which movement and new combinations continually arise.

Abstract ramblings. LOL.

Quillsky

The only times I encounter discussions of religion or belief which include the term: ATHEIST...are in polemical contexts.

That's an interesting point, Terry.

After you posted this I gave it some thought, and I realized that in real life if someone asks me "What religion do you belong to?" or "Do you go to church?" or "Are you a Christian?" - I never say "No, I'm an atheist" or "No, I'm agnostic."

I simply say something like "No, I don't have a religion" or "I don't go to church."

quietlyleaving

essan

Interesting Terry,

Yeah, there is a rather delicious heretical "bad boy" air about the label "Atheist", I have to admit.

I don't want to come over all 'Taoist' but due to the recent discussions I've been pondering what the various 'camps' of Theist, Agnostic and Atheist bring to life, because it seems that despite our personal preferences and beliefs, or lack thereof, they all end up serving their purpose in the "machinery" of life, so to speak.

What I think Atheism brings is 'heat' and Atheism is the agency which opposes and 'rubs up against' Theism, the resulting friction causing 'heat', energy, passion. Theism and Atheism are the partners in that heat generating 'Tango' and the heat probably fuels change, motion, possibly more rapidly than would otherwise occur.

Agnosticism may be more realistic or truthful, but it's not a very potent agency for change or movement and while that isn't 'right' or 'wrong', life doesn't seem to much care for 'truth", it just seems to want to move, and therefore agencies of motion appear, antagonistic opposites leading to explosive combustion out which movement and new combinations continually arise.

Abstract ramblings. LOL.

you'll enjoy it here essan - abstract ramblings and all. we have many explosive combustions on JWN which makes a change from JWdom. Like animals (this is not a cuss btw) we form alliances/ packs have our "fights", generating more energy and change, keeping things lively. Alliances dissolve. Then another fight comes along giving rise to new alliances. Then there is much sniffing around each other to determine whose side you are on - a little snarling and snapping - sparks and flashes - cuts and thrusts - warriors most of us - lol. I'm sure everyone goes away with something even its its more likely to be a bruise. Not many sheep here I'm afraid - wolves, goats and hyenas -

I think Taoism recognizes this if I'm not mistaken - being that the yin and the yan tuck in closely together - explosive forces together with strong but gentle forces -tango-ing and moving along continually

Essan

Thanks QL. Nice description.

JWN - Wolves....in wolves clothing LOL

Yes, no doubt all the cut and thrust and heated debate accelerates change.

Terry

I've been pondering what the various 'camps' of Theist, Agnostic and Atheist bring to life, because it seems that despite our personal preferences and beliefs, or lack thereof, they all end up serving their purpose in the "machinery" of life, so to speak.

I know several OCD people. I work with a few. There lives are a lot of misery. Counting unnecessarily. Washing hands until they crack and bleed.

Over meticulous straightening......

Beliefs are compulsions too.

It all comes down to how much baggage you want to carry through the airport.

We've all had to catch a flight at one time or other. Shlepping too many bags at a dead run can wear you out.

Life is like that, too.

Why carry unnecessary beliefs around which all of your decisions have to FILTER THROUGH before you can act?

Why lug around superstitious fears?

Religion really is a leftover from the pre-scientific pre-Enlightenment world when humanity just didn't know enough in the way of facts

to see clearly enough why things are the way they are,

Fairies, ghosts, demons, Jinns, magicians, Shaman, talisman, charms, incantations, prayers.....that is A LOT OF BAGGAGE!

Why not just pack the bare necessities into a carry on and take life a little less stressfully? When you get where you are going you won't have to endure the wait for your baggage to slide down that carousel in the lobby.

agonus

Terry, you're still getting religion and spirituality confused. I find comfort and relief in the idea that there might be a higher power/intelligence, a life beyond this, etc. I don't find much comfort and relief in worrying about whether I locked the door or left the oven on. Trust me, compulsions are not the same thing as ruminations.

agonus

For me, faith in SOMETHING greater than myself (don't call it God if that makes your nuts constrict) IS one of those bare necessities.

Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

Share this