"Atheism is a world view"

[Andy]

Atheism is a world view...

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

[Hope]

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings of humanity, the natural world, etc.

[Andy]

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings of humanity, the natural world, etc.

Wrong.

[Shaker]

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings.

Those things spring from some other thing which is a wordview - naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism, yadda yadda yadda. Take your pick.

But atheism itself isn't a worldview.

[Alien]

Atheism is a world view...

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Whereas OED says:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.

[Andy]

Atheism is a world view...

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Whereas OED says:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.

Yes, a best way to start is to agree what it is we're talking about. I'm not fussed over what labels that are attached if we agree on what is meant by them.

So regarding what you've said, atheism as a whole can be covered by the latter, because by definition all strong atheists do what weak atheists do.

[ProfessorDavey]

Atheism is a world view...

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Whereas OED says:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.

I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.

I think atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.

[BeRational]

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' and therefore all your understandings are predicated on that understanding of the world - ie, its an underpinning understanding of the world on which you, and others here, build your more detailed understandings of humanity, the natural world, etc.

I am an atheist and it is not correct to say that I believe there is no god.

So, you are wrong from the start.

[ProfessorDavey]

OK, as an atheist you believe that there is no sentient being that has created 'life, the universe and everything' ...

Nope - confusing belief with lack of belief again there Hope.

[Rhiannon]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

I can see that theism might be, but remember atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. So atheism could be construed as a lack of experience if theism is construed as an experience, but not as an experience per se.

[Shaker]

I think the first of those definition is very poor and rather biased and pejorative and actually rather inconsistent because the opposite or negative of belief isn't denial but lack of belief.

Another thing wrong with it is that to define atheism as a denial of God implies that there's a cogent, shared definition of God that everybody knows, only some affirm it and some deny it. This is news to me.

[Outrider]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

I suppose it's possible that theism could be an experience - I don't know that it has to be, but it could be. I'm not sure how atheism could be an experience, though - there are people who claim to have had no personal experience of the divine but who are nevertheless believers.

How would you differentiate atheism as the experience of not-god from the theists who have no experience of god? How do you differentiate between those two lack of experiences?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?

[Rhiannon]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?

I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.

When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm wondering if atheism and theism are experiences. We call them 'beliefs' but unless we experience them as real or not they are meaningless.

(A) does that mean that experiencing being hit in the face by a custard pie is a world view, and (b) how do we experience aHHHHuijjnj or lack of HHHHuijjnj?

I didn't say all experiences were world views; I offered experiences as an alternative to the idea that beliefs are world views and take on board PD's idea that atheism therefore is a lack of experience.

When random keyboard punching is the name of a belief system, deity or other supernatural whatsit then we can talk about how we experience it.

Exccept for gods to be more than random key punching it for any non experiencers - talking about it as something understandable needs something to be agreed on as a meningful or logically non contradictory definition

[Outrider]

Exccept for gods to be more than random key punching it for any non experiencers - talking about it as something understandable needs something to be agreed on as a meningful or logically non contradictory definition

I'm not sure that it does - certainly there are some believers who do not claim to have had a religious experience, yet they have sufficient a concept of 'god' to place faith in it.

As a non-believer, I couldn't give a concrete definition of god, and what I can give isn't always consistent or rational - partly because it's a portmanteau of a number of different sources and concepts, and partly because if it is real it's beyond our conceptual framework - but I can generate enough of an idea to talk about it rationally, even if only in terms of the impact it has.

As an analogy - no-one is clear if dark matter or dark energy actually exist, they are 'framework' names as placeholders for quantities and concepts we haven't accurately defined, as yet, but we can have rational discussions about the in terms of their impact and, therefore, their presumed properties, without being able to completely define them.

We just need to admit that the understanding and conclusions are provisional, of course, I'm not sure all believers are necessarily open to that idea (and some non-believers, too, I suppose).

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure that it does - certainly there are some believers who do not claim to have had a religious experience, yet they have sufficient a concept of 'god' to place faith in it.

As a non-believer, I couldn't give a concrete definition of god, and what I can give isn't always consistent or rational - partly because it's a portmanteau of a number of different sources and concepts, and partly because if it is real it's beyond our conceptual framework - but I can generate enough of an idea to talk about it rationally, even if only in terms of the impact it has.

As an analogy - no-one is clear if dark matter or dark energy actually exist, they are 'framework' names as placeholders for quantities and concepts we haven't accurately defined, as yet, but we can have rational discussions about the in terms of their impact and, therefore, their presumed properties, without being able to completely define them.

We just need to admit that the understanding and conclusions are provisional, of course, I'm not sure all believers are necessarily open to that idea (and some non-believers, too, I suppose).

O.

But speaking as a non experiencer in Rhiannon's terms - god is exactly equivalent to random key punch if that experience expressed by Rhiannon is about something that is logically incoherent or meaningless. How do I as a non experiencer distinguish between god and jjjhhgh? This isn't about complete definitions, it's about definitions that make any form of sense

[Outrider]

I'm not sure that it does - certainly there are some believers who do not claim to have had a religious experience, yet they have sufficient a concept of 'god' to place faith in it.

As a non-believer, I couldn't give a concrete definition of god, and what I can give isn't always consistent or rational - partly because it's a portmanteau of a number of different sources and concepts, and partly because if it is real it's beyond our conceptual framework - but I can generate enough of an idea to talk about it rationally, even if only in terms of the impact it has.

As an analogy - no-one is clear if dark matter or dark energy actually exist, they are 'framework' names as placeholders for quantities and concepts we haven't accurately defined, as yet, but we can have rational discussions about the in terms of their impact and, therefore, their presumed properties, without being able to completely define them.

We just need to admit that the understanding and conclusions are provisional, of course, I'm not sure all believers are necessarily open to that idea (and some non-believers, too, I suppose).

O.

But speaking as a non experiencer in Rhiannon's terms - god is exactly equivalent to random key punch if that expereince expressed by Rhiannon is about something that is logically incoherent or meaningless. How do I as a non experiencer distinguish between god and jjjhhgh? This isn't about complete definitions, it's about definitions that make any form of sense

Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.

If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.

If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.

O.

No, I don't have such an understanding - to have an understanding it would need something that made sense in some way to me - so for example a being outside space and time is exactly the same to me as a four sided triangle - it is definitionally meaningless.

[Rhiannon]

Just to say I'm not opting out of the discussion but am on my phone so can't post as I would wish. Will try later if I can prise the iPad off the small boy that I know.

[Outrider]

Those experiences, though, don't happen in a vacuum. We all have an understanding of what is meant by 'god', even if we haven't either a belief or a direct personal experience.

If we can only presume to understand those things that are explained as part of the specific argument we lose access to a shared language at all.

O.

No, I don't have such an understanding - to have an understanding it would need something that made sense in some way to me - so for example a being outside space and time is exactly the same to me as a four sided triangle - it is definitionally meaningless.

See, I can't do a 'four-sided triangle' but I do remember being shown a triangle with three right-angles and realising that every single conception I have is limited.

I don't pretend to understand the idea of 'god' fully, I can't grasp 'outside of space and time' in its entirety, and I appreciate that our language starts to break-down when we get into those areas, but that isn't grounds to just give up and go home.

We have advanced as a species by going into those places our conceptual framework doesn't belong and setting up shop. Once upon a time we had no conceptual framework by which to contemplate the wave concept of light, or wave/particle duality, or the quantum model of light... Now we do.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

See, I can't do a 'four-sided triangle' but I do remember being shown a triangle with three right-angles and realising that every single conception I have is limited.

I don't pretend to understand the idea of 'god' fully, I can't grasp 'outside of space and time' in its entirety, and I appreciate that our language starts to break-down when we get into those areas, but that isn't grounds to just give up and go home.

We have advanced as a species by going into those places our conceptual framework doesn't belong and setting up shop. Once upon a time we had no conceptual framework by which to contemplate the wave concept of light, or wave/particle duality, or the quantum model of light... Now we do.

O.

But then we are back at Green ideas sleeping furiously - that someone can stick some words togther is no guarantee of it having any meaning or sense. I only ask those who state 'god' whether experienced or believed give me some definition that is not either logically contradictory or meaningless to my viewpoint - the fault may be mine but as yet I haven't seen one so currently it makes as much sense as a four sided triangle whivch is definitionally wrong.

[Outrider]

See, I can't do a 'four-sided triangle' but I do remember being shown a triangle with three right-angles and realising that every single conception I have is limited.

I don't pretend to understand the idea of 'god' fully, I can't grasp 'outside of space and time' in its entirety, and I appreciate that our language starts to break-down when we get into those areas, but that isn't grounds to just give up and go home.

We have advanced as a species by going into those places our conceptual framework doesn't belong and setting up shop. Once upon a time we had no conceptual framework by which to contemplate the wave concept of light, or wave/particle duality, or the quantum model of light... Now we do.

O.

But then we are back at Green ideas sleeping furiously - that someone can stick some words togther is no guarantee of it having any meaning or sense. I only ask those who state 'god' whether experienced or believed give me some definition that is not either logically contradictory or meaningless to my viewpoint - the fault may be mine but as yet I haven't seen one so currently it makes as much sense as a four sided triangle whivch is definitionally wrong.

Triangles are not intrinsically wrong. Four sided shaped are not intrinsically wrong. Four side triangles are not wrong within a conceptualisation that the temporal start and end constitutes a 'side'.

Nevertheless, you are dismissing all conceptualisation of 'god' because no-one has been able to give you a sufficiently precise definition. "God is that intelligence which caused the universe to be" is sufficiently vague to give us a start point, certainly for the Abrahamic god - can you not work from there in, to develop a dialogue?

O.

[Alien]

Atheism is a world view...

Ok, I'm an atheist.

Please elaborate on what my world view entails due to my atheism.

It might help to avoid confusion if you were to define "atheist". OED and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have different understandings. Thus Stanford says:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Whereas OED says:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

As some here are aware I try to avoid confusion by describing the former as "strong atheism" and the latter as "weak atheism", terminology which is in frequent use around the internet.

Yes, a best way to start is to agree what it is we're talking about. I'm not fussed over what labels that are attached if we agree on what is meant by them.

So regarding what you've said, atheism as a whole can be covered by the latter, because by definition all strong atheists do what weak atheists do.

Agreed.