Coito ergo sum wrote:Seth wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Not quite, but it's close.
When you talk about the capital-A Atheist being "practitioners" of "Atheism" (capital A) as a "religion," we will also need to know what the tenets or basic principles of this "Atheism" of which you speak.
No, you don't. You need only observe how Atheists act and it's easy to deduce that they have any number of things in common, primary among those traits are an active rejection of theistic claims, very often an active hatred of organized religion combined with social and political actions in support of Atheism (atheistic evangelization) and in political and social opposition to some or all organized religions. The basic belief of Atheists is that religion is a bane to human advancement and that belief in deity is indication of mental derangement, along with a belief that society would be better off if no one believed in God (in spite of the clear evidence that when societies organize around atheism it always ends badly, with mass death as one of the most frequent results), and a strong belief that science can answer all questions.
Besides which, a set of "tenets" or "basic principles" held in common by all members is not a requirement of religion.
As a Christian devotedly follows certain tenets and articles of faith, so too to be "as a religion" Atheism must have basic tenets and articles of faith. So, I would ask you to let me know what some major examples of those are.
Atheists are as Atheists do, and I've pointed out significant similarities that demonstrate the practice of religion by Atheists.
"atheism" without the capital A just means nonbelief or disbelief in gods (not just whatever capital G God you're mentioning).
Not quite. "atheism," as defined by both dictionaries and particularly by Atheists (who insist on this definition with great vigor whenever they are accused of practicing religion) means "a lack of belief in god or gods." Not disbelief, just a lack of belief. This is the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. A lack of belief implies a lack of consideration and value judgments about the claims of theism. It means ignorance of theistic concepts because once a person, any person who has a competent mind, is informed of theistic concepts, they naturally and inherently, and inescapably, give those concepts or ideas consideration, compare them against personal experience and education and other internal touchstones, and they inevitably and irreversibly make a value judgment about the claims. Some people form a belief in the concepts or claims. Some people dismiss or discard the concepts or claims as insufficiently supported by scientific evidence. But only small children and idiots can justifiably or rationally claim to have "a lack of belief" in or more importantly about the existence of god or gods.
If you learn of the claims of theists, and you consider and test them internally and then reject them, you have formed a belief about the existence of god or gods. That is active disbelief, which defines the explicit atheist.
If you hold that belief (which is itself a manifestation of faith in that you cannot DISPROVE the existence of god or gods, you merely have faith in the lack of personal knowledge of what you consider to be credible evidence for the existence of god or gods, which you then extend to support a claim that god or gods cannot or do not exist when in fact you are making that judgment in ignorance), and you build a practice set around that belief, like spending time participating in discussions on line with other like minded individuals, donating to Atheist organizations, proselytizing about the benefits of "reason" and "science," attacking theists, engaging in political activities to advance Atheism and secularism and other actions that are based in your rejection of the claims of theism and your belief that god or gods do not exist and that the influence of religion on society is negative and must be opposed, you are practicing the Atheist religion in every relevant way.
So, there aren't any tenets and principles then?
There's at least one: "I don't believe in God." That's sufficient.
In whatever way you want to phrase it, atheism is the belief that gods do not exist, or the lack of a belief in a god or gods.
Yup.
You are incorrect in your distinction between this explicit and implicit atheism, though. You seem to think that explicit atheism requires an "examination of theistic beliefs" and formation of a belief that they are wrong. This is not correct. One can never have examined all of the theistic or polytheistic or deistic beliefs and rejected them all. Atheism is merely the statement of "I don't know, therefore I don't believe." Or, it is "based on the evidence I have so far, I don't believe." Atheism is either "I don't believe in gods, or I lack a belief in gods." Those are functionally equivalent phrases.
Wrong. I never said that the examination of theistic beliefs needed to be comprehensive. Merely giving consideration to the most basic of theistic claims, that there is a god, and an understanding, however simplistic of what "god" means in that context, creates the required condition for explicit atheism.
The definition of "atheism" (one of them) is not "I lack a belief in gods," it's "a lack of belief in gods." There's a distinction between "I don't believe in gods" and "I lack belief in gods" and "a lack of belief in gods." The first two are conclusions drawn from analysis of evidence examined (the concept of god and what is meant by it) which actually comprise a belief about gods, whereas a "lack of belief in gods" implies ignorance of the concept upon which a belief may be formed. That's not my construct, that's the construct of the philosopher who coined the phrases, George H. Smith.
Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subsets of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it".[1] Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.
Smith defines implicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". "Absence of theistic belief" encompasses all forms of non-belief in deities. This would categorize as implicit atheists those adults who have never heard of the concept of deities, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (even if they claim not to be atheists). Children are also included, though, depending on the author, it may or may not also include newborn babies. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[2] Smith is silent on newborn children, but clearly identifies as atheists some children who are unaware of any concept of any deity.
"The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[1]
Source: Wikipedia
I've certainly come to the conclusion that there very probably isn't a god or gods out there, to the point where I'll just shorthand it and say "I don't believe in gods."
Which is fine, but it's still a belief, albeit a negative one, that you have faith in, and upon which you may found a religion or engage in the practice of religion, which may be complex, as in Catholicism, or simple, as in "because I don't believe in gods, I believe that belief in gods is irrational and therefore public policy which supports or advances irrational beliefs in god are improper and should be opposed politically." That's a belief/practice set which may be held devotedly as a matter of conscience or ethics, which is one of the legitimate definitions of "religion."
I mean -- your argument is as applicable to a Christian who rejections Allah or Vishnu. You're going to suggest that a Christian is an implicit a-Vishnuist if he hasn't examined Hinduism, but if he gets a whiff of Hinduism and rejects hinduism, then he's somehow doing so irrationally because he can't prove it wrong?
Strawman. You falsely claim that the particular theistic subject is important, it's not. It matters not at all which god or gods are given consideration, it is the consideration of the root concept of "god" and rejection of that concept which takes one from implicit atheism to explicit atheism and provides one with sufficient belief and faith upon which a practice set may be constructed for a religion to emerge.
That's the essence of your argument.
It's specious, at best. Pure sophistry and circularity.
Wrong.
Your argument really very silly. For example, the argument you make that only idiots or small children could "lack a belief" in gods. I mean, that's just patently ridiculous. If you don't believe in Bacchus, you lack a belief in Bacchus. You may have arrived at your lack of belief through examination of the claims for the existence of Bacchus and found them wanting. When you reject Bacchus, you lack a belief in it. Same thing with whatever this "God" thing is that you keep referring to. By examining your God claims, and seeing that they are nonsensical and childish, at best, one is justified in certainly considering them unproven claims. It's irrational and stupid to believe in an unproven claim. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is to not have a belief in God. All knowledge being provisional, of course, said conclusion is always subject to being falsified as it is based on the best of knowledge at the time, which may change.
This is not about what is justified or unjustified or what's rational or irrational, it's about whether or not atheism can lead to the formation and practice of religion, and clearly it can.
It's not just lack of belief IN gods that defines implicit atheism, it's a lack of belief ABOUT gods as well. Implicit atheism is, as Smith says, a complete lack of understanding of the very concept of "god." Explicit atheism, however, is a lack of belief IN gods that comes from a very clear and obvious belief ABOUT gods. It's "confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs," which is the textbook definition of "belief." In this context, it's confidence in the truth of the proposition that god does not exist based on a personal examination of the evidence for and against the existence of god. It qualifies as "belief" because while there may be no "immediate rigorous proofs" that god does exist, there is also no immediate rigorous proofs that god DOES NOT exist. Therefore, ANY CONCLUSION drawn about the existence or non-existence of god is necessarily a belief, because neither conclusion is subject to immediate rigorous proofs.
Since belief in something that cannot be proven is a prime element of "faith," you display faith in the proposition that god does not exist by stating "I do not believe god exists" or "I do not believe in god," which are functionally identical statements.
Since you have faith in your belief, you meet one of the principle criteria of "religion" if you hold this belief "devotedly," and quite clearly, based on your argumentation here, you are devoted to your belief that god does not exist. If you hold this belief devotedly and as a matter of conscience or ethics, which you also clearly do based on your argumentation here and in the past, you meet all of the necessary criteria for holding religious beliefs.
If you effectuate your religious beliefs in outward actions in support of your beliefs (a practice set), including sharing and discussing your beliefs with other like-minded individuals, arguing your beliefs with those of differing beliefs, putting your beliefs into action socially by congregating with others of like belief or engaging in social or especially political actions associated with your belief/practice set, you are without any doubt whatsoever engaging in religious practice and you're part of a religion, the religion of big-A Atheism, a religion of many sects and differing levels of involvement and participation, but an identifiable religion worthy of it's own proper noun nonetheless.
Welcome to religion, my friend.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
