I have decided to become the follower of all the atheists

[JimC]

I'm afraid I will also disagree that "there is no evidence for the existence of gods" implies any sort of philosophical stand beyond that of accepting there is no evidence to support the existence of gods.

However, it does give a rather different background to a chosen philosophical stance than any theistic position would. I suspect it tends to push philosophical stances in certain directions, ones that demand explanations of the universe involve causation within nature, rather than nature being subject to influences from beyond...

[Loki]

I'm afraid I will also disagree that "there is no evidence for the existence of gods" implies any sort of philosophical stand beyond that of accepting there is no evidence to support the existence of gods.

However, it does give a rather different background to a chosen philosophical stance than any theistic position would. I suspect it tends to push philosophical stances in certain directions, ones that demand explanations of the universe involve causation within nature, rather than nature being subject to influences from beyond...

Agreed, though does atheism promote particular ways of thinking or do particular ways of thinking tend to lead to atheism?

I'm sure that will have been thought about before, anyone have a useful reference?

[Coito ergo sum]

I said the philosophical beliefs of some alleged pioneer atheists is irrelevant to the issue of whether atheism is a philosophy.

And there I still have to disagree. Once we decide to address the issue at all -- "the issue of whether atheism is a philosophy" -- we do have to address the history of the atheist pioneers. That's simply unavoidable.

Actually, logically, it is unnecessary, since even if all those pioneers held precisely the same philosophical belief, it would not mean atheism is a philosophy.

There are plenty of other reasons to learn and understand what atheists have written over the years. But, answering the question "is atheism a philosophy" is not one of them.

And, this non sequitur of "once we decide to address the issue at all" is just a distraction. "Is atheism a philosophy" has been the issue since the OP. Kevin claimed it was. I adopted the opposing view.

The philosophies of the pioneers have to be a starting point in any inquiry as to whether there is such a thing as an "atheistic philosophy" at all.

Negative. It's part of any good education on the topic, but the philosophies of those you call "pioneers" do not make it more likely or less likely that atheism is a philosophy. There may be "atheistic philosophies." But, that is not the same thing as saying "atheism IS a philosophy." An atheistic philosophy is a philosophy that entails the non-existence of gods. However, because a philosophy is atheistic does not mean that it is a necessary requirement of atheism.

Maybe one could make a very good argument that there isn't such a thing. Fine. I'm not saying you can't make such an argument and make it effectively. But I am saying that it's silly to think that an issue like that can be addressed comprehensively in the absence of looking seriously at the thinking of those pioneers who first broke the theist mold of their societies in the first place! That's just common sense.

That's just an argument in favor of being well-read. One can't understand much of western literature without reading the King James Bible, either, but that doesn't mean that western literature IS religious or IS anything else, nor does it even tend to show it. It's "important" to read the history and background, but whether it's "relevant" to a given issue depends on whether it advances one or the other of the competing propositions. In this case, the question is one of definition. If atheism is "the lack of belief in gods, or the belief that there are no gods" (or words to that effect) then no amount of history or pioneering writing can make it a philosophy. Mere nonbelief in the existence of a god can't be a philosophy anymore than the lack of belief in ghosts is a philosophy. We don't need to examine the pioneers in anti-supernatural thought and read through the writings of atomist philosophers and early anti-mystics to know that it's not a philosophy.

Look, maybe, such historical scrutiny might actually help in discounting the notion of viewing atheism as a philosophy. Any conclusion that atheism is a philosophy might or not be borne out by what we see in history. Fine. But the philosophies of those pioneers are still relevant to the issue, one way or the other. On this, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree.

Stein

How is it at all relevant? Under what circumstance would the history make atheism a philosophy? What could the "pionoeers" possibly have said or written to make atheism a philosophy? Like I said - even if they all held the same philosophy, it doesn't mean atheism IS a philosophy. It would only mean those pioneers held that philosophy. Heck, even if every one of your pioneers SAID "I am announcing the philosophy of atheism" - and set forth the principles of that philosophy - it would not change the fact that mere non-belief in gods simply is not a philosophy. It's non-belief in gods, and everything else is incidental. Atheists show every day that atheism is not a philosophy by virtue of their being atheists of every stripe - Republican atheists - Democrat atheist - Marxist atheists - Libertarian atheists - Epicurean atheists - Stoic atheists - Rationalist atheists - Empiricist atheists - atheists can be religious - atheists can be secular - atheists can be selfish - atheists can be altruistic - they can and they are all those things. If atheism was a philosophy, then that would not be the case.

[Coito ergo sum]

The kind of atheism that we're focusing on here is the type that arises as push-back against some prevailing brand of theism.

"We?" - the focus of the discussion has never been on a particular "kind" of atheism. It's been "is atheism a philosophy." If you are claiming that it is - what's your argument? So far, you've recounted the history, but you haven't connected up that history to explain how it shows that atheism is, in fact a philosophy. Or, if you have, I've missed it and would appreciate it if you would state it again for me.

If you're claiming that it's not, then you and I are in agreement, and you may want to present your argument to those adopting the "yes it is" position.

[MrFungus420]

Rand said...

Who cares?

I'd rather have to read the "begats" of the Bible than any of her boring crap again. It's a more compelling storyline and more interesting than anything that she has written.

The point wasn't what she wrote...it was that she was an atheist and advanced philosophy X, while other atheists advance philosophies Y and Z and A and B and C.

Sorry...Knee-jerk reaction...

[Stein]

Atheists show every day that atheism is not a philosophy by virtue of their being atheists of every stripe - Republican atheists - Democrat atheist - Marxist atheists - Libertarian atheists - Epicurean atheists - Stoic atheists - Rationalist atheists - Empiricist atheists - atheists can be religious

Sorry, I just have to query this. How can atheists be religious?

Stein

[Atheist-Lite]

Atheists show every day that atheism is not a philosophy by virtue of their being atheists of every stripe - Republican atheists - Democrat atheist - Marxist atheists - Libertarian atheists - Epicurean atheists - Stoic atheists - Rationalist atheists - Empiricist atheists - atheists can be religious

Sorry, I just have to query this. How can atheists be religious?

Stein

Human beings self-contradict all the time.

[Coito ergo sum]

Atheists show every day that atheism is not a philosophy by virtue of their being atheists of every stripe - Republican atheists - Democrat atheist - Marxist atheists - Libertarian atheists - Epicurean atheists - Stoic atheists - Rationalist atheists - Empiricist atheists - atheists can be religious

Sorry, I just have to query this. How can atheists be religious?

Stein

If a religious belief does not entail belief in a god or gods, then an atheist can hold that religious belief and still be an atheist.

Buddhists can be atheists. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.

Atheists can even be Quakers - sometimes called "Nontheistic Friends." They are actively interested in realizing centered peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, happiness and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond.

Hinduism as well - In the words of R.C. Zaehner, "it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism." Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 51. Both the Samkhya and the Mimamsa schools of Hindu philosophy reject the existence of a creator god, making them explicitly atheistic from a Hindu perspective.

Some atheists belong to the Unitarian-Universalist religion.

[Eriku]

I realise atheism is a philisophical standpoint beyond my primitive and instinctual understanding. All I can do is follow in the footsteps of atheists. I may refer to myself as a nihilist but that means nothing now. If there is a future for me it is only to found in trying to emulate the atheists and especially their newly discovered leader. I shall do my best. You lead and I follow but I'm not currently gay so use that as metaphor please, unless your a pretty one?

Good luck with that... we're not really a homogenous group, y'know?

[Bella Fortuna]

Eriku! Nice to see you back.

[Eriku]

y fank u m'dear

what does K.I.S.S. stand for?

[Bella Fortuna]

y fank u m'dear

what does K.I.S.S. stand for?

"Keep It Simple, Stupid."

[Eriku]

oh... that's not at all what I thought would come up when I wrote : kiss :

Use yer imagination ^_^

[Bella Fortuna]

Consider it done!

[Stein]

Atheists show every day that atheism is not a philosophy by virtue of their being atheists of every stripe - Republican atheists - Democrat atheist - Marxist atheists - Libertarian atheists - Epicurean atheists - Stoic atheists - Rationalist atheists - Empiricist atheists - atheists can be religious

Sorry, I just have to query this. How can atheists be religious?

Stein

If a religious belief does not entail belief in a god or gods, then an atheist can hold that religious belief and still be an atheist.

Buddhists can be atheists. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality,

Not quite. Brahma is held up as a mirror of what humans should aspire to in sermon #13 of the Digha-Nikaya --

-- 'And so you say, VaseÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu [a Buddhist monk] is free from anger, and free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself; and that Brahma is free from anger, and free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself. Then in sooth, VaseÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu who is free from anger, free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself should after death, when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahma, who is the same-such a condition of things is every way possible!' --

-- Now, this is not quite saying that Brahma is the direct source of moral behavior. But it is implying that Brahma can at least be used for instruction in moral behavior.

and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain.

Atheists can even be Quakers - sometimes called "Nontheistic Friends." They are actively interested in realizing centered peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, love, happiness and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond.

Hinduism as well - In the words of R.C. Zaehner, "it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monism, monotheism, polytheism, or even atheism." Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 51. Both the Samkhya

Its founder, Kapila, is described in some sources as theistic, even though it's true that he does not subscribe to an actual creator god.

and the Mimamsa

Its founder, Jaimini, makes occasional devotional reference to Brahma in the Mimamsa Sutra, although here too no creator attributes are explicitly given to Brahma.

schools of Hindu philosophy reject the existence of a creator god, making them explicitly atheistic from a Hindu perspective.

But not from the perspective of 100 out of 100 modern atheists.

Some atheists belong to the Unitarian-Universalist religion.

Stein