The Militant Tendency Within Atheism/Secular Rationalism

[JimC]

It's actually a very interesting issue. I have read many an article by people who make it clear that they don't really believe in god, but refuse to label themselves atheist. I suspect it's because that they feel that naming themselves as an atheist forces them into an aggressively anti-religious position, laden with dogmatic overtones that they feel very uncomfortable with.

[pErvinalia]

I think being an atheist involves the active rejection of belief. If you don't actively reject it, but instead don't even ponder it, then I don't think you are dichotomously an atheist. It's a bit of a false dichotomy, as Pappa said.

[Hermit]

Ding to the New Scientist, there are a billion confirmed atheists in the world, plus 1.5 billion apatheists. The latter do not really believe or disbelieve. They just don't give a damn.

On any given proposition you must either believe it or disbelieve it. It is binary.

If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then you believe.

Whether or not you care about the proposition doesn't change that.

I care about the proposition regarding a god-thingy's existence a lot. After close to two decades of catholic upbringing I briefly became a deist, then even more briefly an atheist. Now I am an increasingly militant anti-religionist agnostic. Which one of your two pigeon holes would you slot me into?

[cronus]

Ding to the New Scientist, there are a billion confirmed atheists in the world, plus 1.5 billion apatheists. The latter do not really believe or disbelieve. They just don't give a damn.

On any given proposition you must either believe it or disbelieve it. It is binary.

If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then you believe.

Whether or not you care about the proposition doesn't change that.

I care about the proposition regarding a god-thingy's existence a lot. After close to two decades of catholic upbringing I briefly became a deist, then even more briefly an atheist. Now I am an increasingly militant anti-religionist agnostic. Which one of your two pigeon holes would you slot me into?

Nihilism is the best stance.

[JimC]

Given that the simple basis for atheism is a lack of belief in a god, the real interest comes in the way atheists view religions and religious people, and how their politics are affected by that stance.

For example, it is perfectly possible for a religious person to have a rigorous secularist philosophy, in that they may wish to see no aspect of religion appear in the process of government.

It is also possible for an atheist to be perfectly tolerant of religions and religious people whose actions do not transgress fundamental human rights, or attempt to interfere in broader society. Dawkins went too far, IMO, in his insistence that moderate, non-evangelising christianity needed to be opposed, because, in his opinion, it somehow enabled or maintained the fundamentalist nutters. One can oppose the crazed muslims or moronic christian fundamentalists from a variety of ethical perspectives, not all of them based on atheism.

[MrFungus420]

Ding to the New Scientist, there are a billion confirmed atheists in the world, plus 1.5 billion apatheists. The latter do not really believe or disbelieve. They just don't give a damn.

On any given proposition you must either believe it or disbelieve it. It is binary.

If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then you believe.

Whether or not you care about the proposition doesn't change that.

That's only true if you think about a proposition, and/or give a fuck about it.

No, it doesn't.

For every possible thing, you either believe that it exists or you do not believe that it exists.

If you are completely ignorant about it, then you do not believe that it exists.

[MrFungus420]

Ding to the New Scientist, there are a billion confirmed atheists in the world, plus 1.5 billion apatheists. The latter do not really believe or disbelieve. They just don't give a damn.

On any given proposition you must either believe it or disbelieve it. It is binary.

If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then you believe.

Whether or not you care about the proposition doesn't change that.

A person could also be ambivalent or conflicted. It doesn't have to be a binary.

Yes, it does. It is a logical necessity.

If you believe something, you cannot simultaneously not-believe that thing.
If you do not-believe something, then you cannot simultaneously believe that thing.

If you are ignorant about something, then you do not have a belief about it. That is called "not believing".

Your position can change, but at any time it is one or the other.

[MrFungus420]

Ding to the New Scientist, there are a billion confirmed atheists in the world, plus 1.5 billion apatheists. The latter do not really believe or disbelieve. They just don't give a damn.

On any given proposition you must either believe it or disbelieve it. It is binary.

If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then you believe.

Whether or not you care about the proposition doesn't change that.

I care about the proposition regarding a god-thingy's existence a lot. After close to two decades of catholic upbringing I briefly became a deist, then even more briefly an atheist. Now I am an increasingly militant anti-religionist agnostic. Which one of your two pigeon holes would you slot me into?

What is complicated about this?

Answer one question:

Do you believe that a god DOES exist?

If "yes", then you are a theist (considering deism and polytheism as subsets of theism).
If "no", then you are not a theist. And the word for "not theist" is "atheist".

Saying that you are agnostic does not answer the question because agnosticism is not about belief a god.
Saying that you are an anti-religionist (militant or otherwise) does not answer the question because that is not about belief in a god.

The two "pigeon holes" are the two possible positions on this ONE TOPIC. Neither theism not atheism say anything else except whether or not you have the belief that a god does exist. Everything else is something else.

[JimC]

MrFungus420 wrote:

If you are completely ignorant about it, then you do not believe that it exists.

If you take the idea of belief in god as the equivalent of a logical proposition, then you are technically right.

However, in a world where religious belief has a strongly emotional connotation, belief in god involves a whole raft of emotions and social stances. Deliberately choosing not to believe, in the atheist sense, casts away a whole lot of baggage and is done for a reason; it is a significant fact about that person. People who have never been exposed to religion, and have never thought or cared about the issue one way or another are in a very different position to a conscious atheist.

[Pappa]

Ding to the New Scientist, there are a billion confirmed atheists in the world, plus 1.5 billion apatheists. The latter do not really believe or disbelieve. They just don't give a damn.

On any given proposition you must either believe it or disbelieve it. It is binary.

If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then you believe.

Whether or not you care about the proposition doesn't change that.

A person could also be ambivalent or conflicted. It doesn't have to be a binary.

Yes, it does. It is a logical necessity.

If you believe something, you cannot simultaneously not-believe that thing.
If you do not-believe something, then you cannot simultaneously believe that thing.

If you are ignorant about something, then you do not have a belief about it. That is called "not believing".

Your position can change, but at any time it is one or the other.

I disagree. While mostly unusual, it's entirely possible to remain ambivalent about something. It's definitely not a binary.

[Hermit]

Ding to the New Scientist, there are a billion confirmed atheists in the world, plus 1.5 billion apatheists. The latter do not really believe or disbelieve. They just don't give a damn.

On any given proposition you must either believe it or disbelieve it. It is binary.

If you don't believe, then you disbelieve. If you don't disbelieve, then you believe.

Whether or not you care about the proposition doesn't change that.

I care about the proposition regarding a god-thingy's existence a lot. After close to two decades of catholic upbringing I briefly became a deist, then even more briefly an atheist. Now I am an increasingly militant anti-religionist agnostic. Which one of your two pigeon holes would you slot me into?

What is complicated about this?

Answer one question:

Do you believe that a god DOES exist?

If "yes", then you are a theist (considering deism and polytheism as subsets of theism).
If "no", then you are not a theist. And the word for "not theist" is "atheist".

Saying that you are agnostic does not answer the question because agnosticism is not about belief a god.
Saying that you are an anti-religionist (militant or otherwise) does not answer the question because that is not about belief in a god.

The two "pigeon holes" are the two possible positions on this ONE TOPIC. Neither theism not atheism say anything else except whether or not you have the belief that a god does exist. Everything else is something else.

Allright then. There are 10 types of people about - those who reduce everything to binary and those who do not.

Enjoy your glorious monochrome world. I prefer this:

[pErvinalia]

[cronus]

[pErvinalia]

[MrFungus420]

MrFungus420 wrote:

If you are completely ignorant about it, then you do not believe that it exists.

If you take the idea of belief in god as the equivalent of a logical proposition, then you are technically right.

However, in a world where religious belief has a strongly emotional connotation, belief in god involves a whole raft of emotions and social stances.

So what?

I would say that the fact that there is the plethora of (often mutually contradictory) stances related to belief in a god demonstrates that none of it has to do with the belief in a god.

Like I said, everything else is something else.

Deliberately choosing not to believe,

Sorry, but that to me is just nonsensical. Belief is not a choice, as far as I can see.

in the atheist sense, casts away a whole lot of baggage and is done for a reason; it is a significant fact about that person. People who have never been exposed to religion, and have never thought or cared about the issue one way or another are in a very different position to a conscious atheist.

And that doesn't change whether or not they believe in a god.

Atheism only describes one position on one particular proposition. It does not describe how you arrived at that position. It does not describe anything else that may be related to that position.