Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

An atheism merely defined a a lack of belief in Gods eliminates philosophy rather than updates it.

It doesn't eliminate philosophy, it applies it. It's based on an understanding of epistimology and the limits of what you can and can't justify claiming.

The definition is the ultimate deliberate discussion killer.

It puts the onus back on the person making the positive claim - that there is a god - which is where it belongs. Again, not an abrogation of philosophy, just another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof.

You can not like the argument as much as you'd like, but that's absolutely no reason for anyone to ignore the fact that it's justified on its own merits.

Atheism isn't trying to be 'a' philosophy, which is why it's not the diametric opposition of Christianity, but rather of theism.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

An atheism merely defined a a lack of belief in Gods eliminates philosophy rather than updates it. The definition is the ultimate deliberate discussion killer.

No it doesn't - all it potentially eliminates is philosophy based on a requirement for god. And given that philosophies are effectively human-based subjective entities there is no actually objective 'requirement for god' in any philosophy, merely a human subjective assertion of a 'requirement for god' which is an entirely different matter. And given that philosophies are subjective things there is no objective verification possible. Hence they are ultimately based on subjective 'belief' - so a philosophy that, in effect, requires a belief in god is actually predicated on that belief rather than the actual existence of god.

[Maeght]

You mean current usage by a particular denomination of atheism which sees itself as orthodox atheism and discounts positive or hard atheism?....presumably on the basis of a ''No true atheist'' argument.

I don't really care what philosophers think and don't really want to get into another discussion about this. The simplest thing is to consider atheism as a lack of belief in god or Gods then any additional beliefs (such as that God doesn't exist) can be added by each individual.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not philosophy.

You're right, but I did say the ''current' definition ''atheism is the lack of belief in Gods' is an attempt to strip off any philosophical attachments. I say attempt because it can't quite escape the raising of questions or motivations, firstly are we to treat the term ''lack'' as fortunate, neutral or unfortunate? Are there elements of loss about it, is it a virtue or a vice, a gift or a pathology. Most atheists err to a positive view, that it isn't a lack of anything more of a completeness or whatever.......so even this apparently philosophy free definition gives rise to something else.

Were atheism really mere lack of belief in Gods the majority here could have stated that and buggered off years ago so we know there's more meat on the bones....antireligion, antitheism etc. This is precisely the message of John Gray I would have thought.

[Nearly Sane]

You're right, but I did say the ''current' definition ''atheism is the lack of belief in Gods' is an attempt to strip off any philosophical attachments. I say attempt because it can't quite escape the raising of questions or motivations, firstly are we to treat the term ''lack'' as fortunate, neutral or unfortunate? Are there elements of loss about it, is it a virtue or a vice, a gift or a pathology. Most atheists err to a positive view, that it isn't a lack of anything more of a completeness or whatever.......so even this apparently philosophy free definition gives rise to something else.

Were atheism really mere lack of belief in Gods the majority here could have stated that and buggered off years ago so we know there's more meat on the bones....antireligion, antitheism etc. This is precisely the message of John Gray I would have thought.

You seem to confuse the idea of atheism and atheists. An atheist will not simoly be an individual who has a lack of belief in gods. They will be a complex panoply of thoughts, desires, gyrating in the universe. Just like theism is just the belief in god or gods is not philosophy, and it's different from the pulsing personality of a theist.


That someone is an atheist, or a theist, tells me almost nothing about them, and nothing useful. I think there are as many types of atheist as there are atheists, and the same for theists. Gray's jejune categorisation is based to me on a truism but then ignores the consequent logic that it makes his conclusion specious.

[Outrider]

You're right, but I did say the ''current' definition ''atheism is the lack of belief in Gods' is an attempt to strip off any philosophical attachments.

I'd say it's applying the time-honoured philosophical idea of stripping a notion back to its most basic element, to eliminate those extraneous 'philosophical attachments' which bring their own baggage to the discussion.

I say attempt because it can't quite escape the raising of questions or motivations,

I'd say that, by and large, we atheists don't struggle at all. You seem to, but that's a you thing, not an atheism thing.

firstly are we to treat the term ''lack'' as fortunate, neutral or unfortunate?

That's an argument from consequences, which is a fallacy. After you've determined if you're an atheist, you can assess your own life and what meaning you have and where it comes from (you don't have to, I suppose) and you can decide as an individual whether you consider not believing to be a 'lack' or a 'boon'.

Are there elements of loss about it, is it a virtue or a vice, a gift or a pathology. Most atheists err to a positive view, that it isn't a lack of anything more of a completeness or whatever.......so even this apparently philosophy free definition gives rise to something else.

Any philosophy has consequences. Once you've decided that you believe you have to determine if any sect of any particular creed of any particular religion is close enough to your own personal philosophy to sign up to, and the penalties, consequences, benefits and rewards that purportedly come along with that.

Were atheism really mere lack of belief in Gods the majority here could have stated that and buggered off years ago so we know there's more meat on the bones....antireligion, antitheism etc.

Religion and belief are not synonyms. There are any number of religious people who also have a problem with elements of organised religion trying to enforce and legislate their beliefs on people outside of their 'church', whether believers or not. If that agitating, expansionist segment of theists would stop trying to spread their beliefs by the power of law the resistance would not be necessary. Overwhelmingly, in my experience, atheists could not find two shits to put together about whether or not you believe, but along with any number of theists they have a problem when certain believers start saying that because they believe something that women should be denied education, or that gay people should not be allowed to marry or adopt, or that abortion should be restricted. There can be valid arguments for some of these points, arguably, but 'my holy book says...' is not one of those valid arguments.

O.

[Alan Burns]

You might also have quoted:

"That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. 1 ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land."
Surah Al-Ma'idah - 32 - Quran. (A form of the latter sentiment is also found in the Jewish Talmud.)

Apparently the prophet's own interpretation for those who deserve to be killed for "mischief in the land" includes anyone who refuses to accept “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.”

So, Alan, what you've done is a nice bit of cherry picking. Others have pointed out how absurdly blinkered your view is in claiming the unique divine inspiration of the Christian bible. You then try to save face by painting yourself as a kind of Marcionite, distancing yourself from the Old Testament entirely. In so doing you both manage to overlook the many of the of noble texts in the OT, and fail to acknowledge the many passages of nastiness in the NT, all of which certainly do not portray the meek and mild Jesus you think is totally representative.

I have never claimed that Jesus is meek and mild.  He certainly did not treat the hypocritical heirachy of the Jewish religion with meekness.  He constantly reminds us that the way to heaven is not an easy way, but He does promise to give us the help we need to follow His way - which is no the way of this earthy world.

Besides which, I believe someone also pointed out that Jesus considered the Tanakh to be divine truth, and specifically the first five books which are known as The Law. You surely know the text:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfil them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…"
Matt 5:18
And those books contain the lurid Numbers 31, which Jeremy has mentioned.

You are confusing what is implied by "the Law".  Most would interpret this to mean the Law of Moses - not to be confused with what is considered as "instructions".

To add a little balance to your one-sided view, you have to consider that Islam could hardly have built the two great civilisations centred on Baghdad and Cordoba, noted for their religious inclusiveness and cooperation (especially Cordoba) if the central message of Islam were the bloodthirsty caricature that your quotes foist upon it. It's true that many movements within Islam today seem to be moving in that direction, and you certainly won't find me citing Islam as the answer to human problems. The latter movements are certainly inspired by the texts you mention: likewise the gun-carrying Evangelical Christian right in America are no doubt inspired by the wonderful text in Luke:

“He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’”
Luke 22:36

Those gun-tooting Yankies sure think they're standing at God's right hand.

all biblical scholars that I know of do not interpret this as a call to self defence. This is the more common interpretation:-

So when Jesus tells them to buy a sword, he could be speaking figuratively about imminent persecution. According to this interpretation, when the disciples eagerly reveal that they already have two swords, they misunderstand Jesus’ figurative language (this wasn’t the first time). When Jesus sees that his disciples misunderstand him, he ends the dialogue with, “It is enough,” which means something like “enough of this conversation.”

This interpretation makes good sense in light of the context. But there’s another interpretation that I think does slightly more justice to the passage.

Notice that right after Jesus says “buy a sword,” he quotes Isaiah 53:12, which predicts that Jesus would be “numbered with the transgressors” (Luke 22:37). Then, the disciples reveal that they already have two swords, to which Jesus says “it is enough.” Now, Rome only crucified those who were a potential threat to the empire. For Jesus to be crucified, Rome would have to convict him as a potential revolutionary. And this is the point of the swords. With swords in their possession, Jesus and His disciples would be viewed as potential revolutionaries and Jesus would therefore fulfill Isaiah 53 to be numbered with other (revolutionary) transgressors. If Rome didn’t have any legal grounds to incriminate Jesus, there would have been no crucifixion.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to confuse the idea of atheism and atheists. An atheist will not simoly be an individual who has a lack of belief in gods. They will be a complex panoply of thoughts, desires, gyrating in the universe. Just like theism is just the belief in god or gods is not philosophy, and it's different from the pulsing personality of a theist.


That someone is an atheist, or a theist, tells me almost nothing about them, and nothing useful. I think there are as many types of atheist as there are atheists, and the same for theists. Gray's jejune categorisation is based to me on a truism but then ignores the consequent logic that it makes his conclusion specious.

Is there a synopsis somewhere of Gray's 7 categories. I've not read the book and can't find any summary of the argument on-line. So a bit tricky to comment.

However I wonder whether you'd be able to categorise other 'non-beliefs' in a similar manner. Those that don't believe in the teachings of islam, I suspect also must include:

1. active anti-islamists,

2. those whose lack of belief in islam is simply a fact but has no relevance on their attitudes or day to day lives and who never give their lack of belief a second thought,

3. lapsed muslims for whom the teachings are an important cultural backdrop to their lives but not something they actually believe

4. wary, careful non believers who may live in an overwhelmingly islamic society and feel they have to be cautious or even lie about their non belief,

5. searching non believers, those who don't believe but feel things would be better/clearer if they could.

So that's five groups - no idea whether they map onto 5 of Gray's 7 groups.

[Nearly Sane]

Is there a synopsis somewhere of Gray's 7 categories. I've not read the book and can't find any summary of the argument on-line. So a bit tricky to comment.

However I wonder whether you'd be able to categorise other 'non-beliefs' in a similar manner. Those that don't believe in the teachings of islam, I suspect also must include:

1. active anti-islamists,

2. those whose lack of belief in islam is simply a fact but has no relevance on their attitudes or day to day lives and who never give their lack of belief a second thought,

3. lapsed muslims for whom the teachings are an important cultural backdrop to their lives but not something they actually believe

4. wary, careful non believers who may live in an overwhelmingly islamic society and feel they have to be cautious or even lie about their non belief,

5. searching non believers, those who don't believe but feel things would be better/clearer if they could.

So that's five groups - no idea whether they map onto 5 of Gray's 7 groups.

This is a reasonable synopsis, if somewhat biased.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2019/arts_entertainment/seven-types-of-atheism

[ProfessorDavey]

This is a reasonable synopsis, if somewhat biased.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2019/arts_entertainment/seven-types-of-atheism

Thanks.

Before I read it I've thought of a 6th group in my categories:

6. 'Ignorant' non-believers - those who do not believe because they have never heard of the teachings of islam or have no capacity to comprehend at a basic level (new born babies and other species would fall into the latter sub-category) those who have never encountered islam into the former which would include people living before the islam emerged.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is a reasonable synopsis, if somewhat biased.

https://thehumanist.com/magazine/january-february-2019/arts_entertainment/seven-types-of-atheism

Well I'd take issue with this for a start:

Gray’s working definition of an atheist is “anyone with no use for the idea of a divine mind that has fashioned the world.”

That isn't the definition of atheism that I (and I image most people who actually are atheists) would use, namely that it is a lack of belief in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I'd take issue with this for a start:

Gray’s working definition of an atheist is “anyone with no use for the idea of a divine mind that has fashioned the world.”

That isn't the definition of atheism that I (and I image most people who actually are atheists) would use, namely that it is a lack of belief in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

This post more than smells of ''No true atheist'' fallacy.

[Outrider]

This post more than smells of ''No true atheist'' fallacy.

It's a broad church, you don't have to just not believe in creator deities, we'll take you if the deities you don't believe in aren't part of a creation myth as well.... It's exactly the opposite of a 'no true Scotsman', it's not suggesting there are people claiming to be atheists who aren't really, it's pointing out that there are people who are atheists who this description is excluding because it wants to cleave to a particular definition of the gods people are supposed to believe in or not.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think then you have read the Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Atheism.

Would this be the article the very first line of which is:

“The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists”?

Why on earth are you scratching around for examples of the version of atheism that argues that “god(s)” do not/does not exist as it’s not something anyone here actually argues for?

[Nearly Sane]

This post more than smells of ''No true atheist'' fallacy.

There is something awesone in the way you've got the No True Scotsman fallacy so completely round the wrong way. It applies when someone starts adding extra restrictions to an accepted definition to exclude those they might see as detrimental in some way, not when someone gives a more inclusive definition.

[Stranger]

This post more than smells of ''No true atheist'' fallacy.

So we can add the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy to the list of things you don't understand.

The contemporary definition is easy to look up and is being used entirely consistently on this forum by those who consider themselves to be atheists, so there is no instance of arbitrarily changing it to suit new arguments or information.

Concentrating on the definition of 'atheist' seems to be some sort of diversion tactic on your part.

[ProfessorDavey]

This post more than smells of ''No true atheist'' fallacy.

Quite the reverse. The definition that I was discussing seems peculiarly narrow (as well, of course, as not being the definition of atheism!!).

So there are plenty of deities purported to exist that are not creator deities - indeed I image the vast majority. Atheists don't believe in the existence of these deities either.

Atheism applies to all deities, not just creator ones.

[Dicky Underpants]

Just one thing for the moment, Alan. I am certainly not confused about what Jews understand to be 'The Law'. I said it referred to the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. This indeed is commonly known as "The Law of Moses".

So my point still stands. If Jesus considered that not one jot or tittle of these books should pass away, then he was effectively speaking with approval of such horrors which are given divine sanction in Numbers 31.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is something awesone in the way you've got the No True Scotsman fallacy so completely round the wrong way. It applies when someone starts adding extra restrictions to an accepted definition to exclude those they might see as detrimental in some way, not when someone gives a more inclusive definition.

If someone suggests that atheism does not include positive arguments but is “merely” the lack of belief in God’s then how can that possibly be “inclusive”?
The purpose of the suggestion is imho to shut down debate.

[Nearly Sane]

If someone suggests that atheism does not include positive arguments but is “merely” the lack of belief in God’s then how can that possibly be “inclusive”?
The purpose of the suggestion is imho to shut down debate.

Because it includes more people, as opposed to the No True Scotsman fallacy which is exclusionary. How does atheism being the lack of beluef in gods shut down debate?

[Stranger]

If someone suggests that atheism does not include positive arguments but is “merely” the lack of belief in God’s then how can that possibly be “inclusive”?

What are you wittering about now? Atheism can mean positive disbelief or lack of belief. That definition is clearly more inclusive than just the positive claims (that few seem to be arguing for).

The purpose of the suggestion is imho to shut down debate.

How does honestly expressing one's thoughts and beliefs shut down debate?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you wittering about now? Atheism can mean positive disbelief or lack of belief. That definition is clearly more inclusive than just the positive claims (that few seem to be arguing for).

How does honestly expressing one's thoughts and beliefs shut down debate?

The phrase “Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God’s” is an atheist phrase. I suggest you read the Internet encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on atheism.

[Nearly Sane]

The phrase “Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God’s” is an atheist phrase. I suggest you read the Internet encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on atheism.

Can you provide a list of atheist phrases?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well I'd take issue with this for a start:

Gray’s working definition of an atheist is “anyone with no use for the idea of a divine mind that has fashioned the world.”

That isn't the definition of atheism that I (and I image most people who actually are atheists) would use, namely that it is a lack of belief in god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

”People who actually are atheists” That isn’t an “exclusive” statement Nearly Sane?

Because it includes more people, as opposed to the No True Scotsman fallacy which is exclusionary. How does atheism being the lack of beluef in gods shut down debate?

By questioning whether those who have other definitions are “actually atheist” he is being exclusive.

[Stranger]

The phrase “Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God’s” is an atheist phrase.

What's an 'atheist phrase'? It is common usage, regardless:

Atheism at a glance (BBC)
Atheism (Wikipedia) 
Agnostic atheism (Wikipedia)

And frankly the terminology hardly matters. I believe and think what I believe and think, call it whatever you want and it would make no difference. Even if it was only me (which it obviously isn't) it would still be what it is.

I suggest you read the Internet encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry on atheism.

I pointed out the problem with that when you started your pointless exercise, >here<.