ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

Atheism cannot have an inherent moral code, because it is not a belief system. It is an absence of belief in God. But the reason why religions have moral codes at their core is because they are created by people. Atheists are people. Therefore they are just as equipped as the religious to provide morality etc.

suzy otm about another virtue of atheism

I think my argument is that it doesn't particularly matter where they came from; they got baked into the social construct we call religion and, barring some massive cataclysm that drastically reshapes humanity, they are going to stay there, so arguing that those behaviors are totally independent from religion is kind of akin to arguing that black and white are not actually colors; yes, in strict terms you are correct, but it is not a practical distinction to make.

so yes I did basically concede the point, you're welcome

Just because there's no deity involved, that doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief system. Non-belief is also a belief of sorts /ouroborous

also suzy's virtue is pretty easy to classify as "being right", to go back to elmo's original argument

I think my argument is that it doesn't particularly matter where they came from; they got baked into the social construct we call religion and, barring some massive cataclysm that drastically reshapes humanity

I think maybe the Enlightenment provided for a means (in Western culture obvs) of ascertaining morals and ethics and values that were independent of, and in some cases contrary to, religious values and ethics. Like, they ran on a parallel track and could be derived independently and practiced independently.

if atheists had awesome embroidered robes and geodesic temples and rites and folklore and shit i would be all over in a heartbeat.

The Enlightenment also brought us non-Latin Bibles, yo.

A few years ago someone used the gambit of 'you should thank God blah blah blah' on me and I pointed out that whenever people use the G-word on me it has more to do with what they want emotionally from me than what is actually necessary - also a bit like blaming your own fart on the dog.

jeez hi dere i think it's a pretty big distinction to make when someone (or a lot of people? i dunno) claims atheists somehow are at a disadvantage in their ability to relate to those behaviours

re: robes and domes, wouldn't you prefer we take over catholicism? we'd get a whole city.

Just because there's no deity involved, that doesn't mean atheism isn't a belief system. Non-belief is also a belief of sorts /ouroborous

Only when you make it so. It certainly isn't analogous to a religion. Perhaps for someone like Dawkins, or people who identify as 'Humanist' in a certain way. But certainly not for me.

atheism isn't a 'belief' as i'd understand it. in fact just whatever emily says i'll go with itt tbh

"Bibles for slow readers" is like the best thing I've seen all day btw.

I'm not sure skepticism operates on a physical level the same way that belief does. I think you have to on some level hold the belief in order to be skeptical of it. Someone with neuro-bio help me out here.

i think you have to on some level be cold to be hot

I think you have to on some level hold the belief in order to be skeptical of it.

Not true. You have to be able to consider it, which would include viewing it from both (or, if you want to reject binaries, multiple) sides. This is not the same as 'holding the belief', which would mean believing it. But of course, the only reason why I consider this particular belief, which is entirely unimportant to me, is because society asks me to make a decision. Really, I would've been much happier had it not been a question at all.

jeez hi dere i think it's a pretty big distinction to make when someone (or a lot of people? i dunno) claims atheists somehow are at a disadvantage in their ability to relate to those behaviours

This is where I assert that you are conflating atheism with humanism.

don't think so, am merely reacting to what was said upthread re: what atheists as misisng out on, tbh

'are missing'

what i mean is that whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief, and the act of skepticism is one of dismissal, where this construct is inhibited, not one where a new 'non-belief" construct is formed.

this solves the ouroborous problem, which requires an equivalency between belief and non-belief, though it requires you to accept an equivalency between belief and consideration, at least on a neurological level.

i'm pretty sure i misspelled ouroubroous.

whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief

although this sounds impressive, it's really quite mad

ie visualisation for appreciation/valuation != belief on a physical nor any other level, and i can't think for a second how you'd claim it

but it seems to me that an atheist those things have to be found outside of atheism

Well sure. Atheism is sort of a non-thing. It's like you're saying that baldness doesn't come with a hat included so bald people have to look outside of their baldness to find a way to cover their head. Of course. Baldness just means that you have no hair. It doesn't mean that you have no hair but you're also part of some organized community that provides free hats. I think.

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

i might be conflating the studies where people imagining themselves making free throws activated the same parts of the brain as people actually training, and both groups improving by about the same amount. that and something about mirror neurons.

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

seems i'm picking you up wrong in any number of small ways, elmo, but can you pls explain what the sentiment was, in context of 'here's what religion provides, and atheism doesn't'

what i mean is that whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief, and the act of skepticism is one of dismissal, where this construct is inhibited, not one where a new 'non-belief" construct is formed.

Conversely, if a believer has doubts or questions about his faith, does his brain instantly go into a state of non-belief that mimics the brain function of an atheist?

not even that- if a believer considers non-belief as a concept their brain function is therefore atheistic

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

It doesn't "provide" anything. It's not supposed to! Atheism doesn't make the kinds of claims or promises that religion makes, which is why I don't think it's really an "ism."

i think if you considered non-belief as a concept, it'd be more like you believed there is such a thing as non-belief, rather than non-believing.
it would have to be something more along the lines like, "what would it be like to live like a heathen athiest? could I go skiing in the summer?"

Also, all of the talk about skepticism and considering various beliefs presupposes that you're coming from a religious point of view. This is what the people who claim that atheism is a religion or belief system are missing. You don't have to do anything to be an atheist. It doesn't take any deep thought or painful transformations if you haven't already been indoctrinated into a religious mindset. It's just the default state of being.

xpost-- I'm not sure what you're saying there.

hmm think we're getting to the root of something here. atheists can conceive of stuff without automatically believing they exist.

i'm pretty sure most people can tbh, but you have me worried

I think saying "religion" provides all these things that "atheism" doesn't is conflating an awful lot of things, where "religion" is being used as specific shorthand for "monotheism." Religion encompasses everything from Christianity to animism to wicca to Buddhism to Scientology. I just feel like someone is skipping an awful lot of steps, here.

I think the things that bother me about these arguments is the tendency for atheists to argue in an (essentially) ad hominim way - i.e. 'theists think I'm going to hell/ believe that you pray and illnesses are cured/ hate homosexuals or some other group' - and think that this is a refutation of the idea of theism. I think that a lot of the new atheists argue like this - the couple of times I've met Dawkins I always felt that he was arguing against an imaginary, right-wing, american fundamentalist standing next to me - the fact that I possessed none of the characteristics he was criticising seemed to be beside the point.

The other problem is the tendency for theists to try to make the argument a fight for the fundamental claim to be human; suggesting that morality, community, values etc. are exclusively religious qualities is frankly insulting to pretty much everyone.

On a side note, I came to my theism through radical skepticism - sort of a move through Descartes, reaching a dead end, ideas about subjectivity, Wittgenstein, and then moving through Kierkegaard to my own ideas about God and self. This was over a period of about 15 years of introspection, however, and the idea that my faith is 'blind' seems kind of odd to me. I'm also aware that my faith is incapable of communication between people (placing me in the 'mystic' camp, I guess) so I'm really not that interested in trying.

Also, I'm a (fairly hard left) socialist (my faith informs my political beliefs, but my political beliefs do not rely on my faith), and, frankly, I find myself much more concerned by poverty levels, preventable disease, the need for democratization of our socio-economic system, climate change etc. than whether or not one guy gets pissed off by someone preaching in the streets, or another gets pissed off because someone thinks that Christ and God are eternally coexistent rather than Christ being begotten of God. I'll pick the crude Left vs. Right dividing line over the time-wasting theist vs anti-theist dichotomy.

Actually, don't know how much sense that makes...

makes perfect sense

the couple of times I've met Dawkins I always felt that he was arguing against an imaginary, right-wing, american fundamentalist standing next to me

yeha totally. so frustrating to see him chase down these easy and unrewarding paths time after time

aware that my faith is incapable of communication between people (placing me in the 'mystic' camp, I guess)

Squarely. Not such a bad place to be, and one that generally proves a bafflement to the standard issue atheist.

I find myself much more concerned by poverty levels, preventable disease, the need for democratization of our socio-economic system, climate change etc.

Most of which are exacerbated by the actions of various churches around the world.

yeah hm -- ok maybe put it this way: when i say "wisdom" in this context i mean aphorisms and edifying teachings that are built into a religious culture. same thing with values: i mean scripture like "love thy neighbor as thyself" and the beatitudes and such. by community I mean congregations and networks of ppl who can rely and help each other according to those values. all good things that religion, at its best, provides -- it's the nature of the religion.

i DON'T mean to suggest that an atheist is incapable of wisdom etc, NOR that any of those things have their root in religion. atheism doesn't have traditions -- so those things come from elsewhere. AND of course lots of religious people find those things elsewhere, too, it should be said.

l-r dmac, elmo

http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/MH/Scans/A_Heart.jpg

:D

wk, yeah lots of churches are fucked up. Which says nothing about the validity of a belief in god. See a few posts back about the prevelance of ad hominem in atheistic debating techniques.

can't decide if 'sandard issue atheist' is ad hominem or not tbh.

i wish there were still pythagoreans around, wkiw

xp i find it difficult to separate the two when having this discussion tbh

Wouldn't go so far as to say it says NOTHING about the validity of belief in god. Certainly it says that "belief in god" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for acting like a decent human being.

I mean at a certain point you have to get out of the rarefied air of theory and theology and discuss religion as actually manifested in human behavior, right?

yeah i guess when the full spectrum of human behavior is present among believers and nonbelievers i'm like "so what does this actually do?"

xp only if you didn't score a sweet gig in the vatican somewhere tbh

Most of which are exacerbated by the actions of various churches around the world.

Sure. But I tend to be of the opinion that the the form of the relationship is capitalism shaping churches, rather than churches altering the drive of capitalism (after all, if the machinations of such navel-gazing institutions as churches has any serious impact on economic structure then capitalism would have died out a long time ago. But churches, while occupying a peculiar relation to production, are as much controlled by these forces as any other institution, and any dogma finding itself incompatible with capitalism would be sidelined or eliminated. Though depending on your political views that may not apply)

I'd be shocked if the members of these awful churches would concede that the bible was just a bunch of stories, actually.