(March 1, 2018 at 12:50 pm)stretch3172 Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Atheism isn't an ideology, either. It is, literally, the answer to a single question.

Just curious, but what is your prospective Master's degree in? If philosophy, I find it odd to say the least that an exegetical paper on Hebrews would pass muster. Is your school Christian-based?

I am majoring in theological studies at an evangelical seminary. Also, the assumption that there is no god or spiritual existence will influence how you respond to a number of other philosophical questions, just as the assumption that there is a god does.

Assumption nothin, I know FSM exists. Don't let the demons wiggle their earworms of doubt into you.

The funny thing is that there is just as much evidence for the FSM as there is for his godboy.  IOW, none.

(March 1, 2018 at 12:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 12:50 pm)stretch3172 Wrote: I am majoring in theological studies at an evangelical seminary. Also, the assumption that there is no god or spiritual existence will influence how you respond to a number of other philosophical questions, just as the assumption that there is a god does.

Most don't assume there is no god, we just go with what the evidence tells us.

Since nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist then anything that requires the supernatural to be a thing is a t best unproven but more likely complete hogwash.

That's a fair point. But consider this: our five senses are obviously quite limited compared to those of other animals. Similarly, all quantitative, empirical measurements must be based on a limited number of significant figures because our scientific instruments are only accurate to a certain mathematical degree. There's no problem with going in favor of evidence, but our "evidence" is based on our extremely limited means of perceiving reality. To believe in spiritual reality is simply to believe that something exists that transcends our ability to perceive it by natural means. Sure, that's not a proof in itself, but you could argue that it's likely.

---

(March 1, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

stretch3172 Wrote:It's simply the final paper of a course I am taking called "Understanding Cultures and Worldviews." The goal is to accurately understand the worldviews of atheists and agnostics in terms of social structures, ontology, epistemology, and axiology (ethics) and describe said worldviews in their own words. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy (with an anthropology minor) from the University of South Carolina. My master's paper will be an exegetical project on the book of Hebrews.

Thank you for engaging, stretch, that goes a long way with me. It's not helping people with their homework that bugs me so much as them running off without engaging in any dialogue with us.

I went to USC as well!

I understand that. And nice! It's a great school once you get around the terrible parking lol.

---

(March 1, 2018 at 1:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

stretch3172 Wrote:Yep. Fortunately, my prof gave us permission to study ideological groups as well as ethnic ones.

It's not an ideology, either. It a single opinion on a single topic. So is theism. One opinion does not a belief system, ideology, or religion make. It might help to think of the 'ism' in atheism and theism to be like the 'ism' in albinism or metabolism: a condition or state of being. Atheism is the condition of not holding a belief in a deity and theism is the condition of holding such a belief. If all you know about someone is that they're a theist, do you know what their culture, ideology, or religion is? They could be a Buddhist (not all of them), a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a deist, or a 'mere theist' who does not practice any religion, just believes there is some sort of God and so on.

An atheist could be a Buddhist, communist, a humanist, a rational skeptic, a 'cultural Christian', a Unitarian, etc.

Atheism and theism can be features of a culture, ideology, or religion, but they are not any those things in themselves. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in any God or gods, and the only thing all theists have in common is that they all believe at least one god or God is real.

However, there is a social movement, sometimes called the 'atheist movement' that encompasses several things, but you don't have to be an atheist to be in it or support it. It's an umbrella term for a group of ideas and activism that typically includes the idea that atheists should be treated equally in the eyes of the law and not be discriminated against, barred from public office, bullied, or harassed. It naturally goes hand in hand with the idea that separation of government and religion (political secularism) is a good idea. A lot (but not all) of people who could be described as 'supporting the movement' also promote reasonable skepticism, avoidance of conspiracy theories and quack medical practices, and social justice for minorities and women. You can be a devout Christian, Hindu, or Muslim and support all of that; but atheists are definitely the majority. That might be the 'atheist culture' you're thinking of, but the majority of atheists are not part of it, though the majority of atheists on this forum might be considered part of it. Most atheists don't even hang out on sites like this, or really do anything but live their lives like anyone else except for not going to church, and some of us even do that. Like many others I was an atheist without reference to Dawkin's 'The God Delusion'.

You see much less of this kind of 'atheist movement' in the UK because atheists face much less judgmentalism and resistance there. Atheist groups on Meetup would be much less common if American culture didn't treat atheists in such a way that they are often 'in the closet'.

Maybe some of this information will be useful for your assignment. Full disclosure: I consider myself an atheistic humanist rational skeptic Unitarian who thinks there is merit in Buddhism and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

---

stretch3172 Wrote:I am majoring in theological studies at an evangelical seminary. Also, the assumption that there is no god or spiritual existence will influence how you respond to a number of other philosophical questions, just as the assumption that there is a god does.

It's more of a conclusion than an assumption, for those of us who used to be theists, at least.

I know atheists who believe in ghosts, atheists who believe in reincarnation, and atheists who believe in astrology. Could you be more specific on what philosophical questions in which merely not believing in God (or gods) influences one's response? Clearly being an atheist doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, for instance. Besides the philosophical question 'is there a God', or philosophical questions that presume God, what do you mean?

As I said, I understand that there will be many drastic contextual differences between each individual atheist, and these differences will be numerous and complex. That said, I am attempting to focus primarily on the worldviews themselves, and I will simply have to address those specific differences in religion, culture, background, etc. as I come to them. Also, I am also including agnostics (both theistic and atheistic) in my project, and I am also looking at their different epistemological standards as well. 

Concerning your question: I believe the most obvious philosophical area in which atheism is relevant is axiology (ethics). To the Christian, ethical concepts such as right and wrong, just an unjust, good and evil, etc. are objective categories established by God according to universal principles (not unlike the concept of Plato's "Forms"). For the atheist, there must be some other way of understanding these, since there are no such objective standards. Most atheists would say that these concepts simply evolved with each particular culture, which obviously suggests that even the most barbaric acts against fellow humans can be "good," "just," or "moral", provided that the relevant culture says so. Therefore, all philosophical questions related to the origin/nature of any form of ethical standard(s) present fairly complicated challenges for atheists of any stripe, which is why many extremely complicated theories have developed in moral philosophy over the centuries.

(March 1, 2018 at 12:50 pm)stretch3172 Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Atheism isn't an ideology, either. It is, literally, the answer to a single question.

Just curious, but what is your prospective Master's degree in? If philosophy, I find it odd to say the least that an exegetical paper on Hebrews would pass muster. Is your school Christian-based?

I am majoring in theological studies at an evangelical seminary. Also, the assumption that there is no god or spiritual existence will influence how you respond to a number of other philosophical questions, just as the assumption that there is a god does.

And what of the conclusion that there are, as yet, insufficient reasons to believe in gods, but it remains an open question that could be settled with . . . you know, evidence? If you choose to view basic, commonsense skepticism as somehow an ideology, I really don't know what to say to you. You won't find a lot of atheists who make sweeping knowledge claims about whether any conceivable god exists. Most of us are agnostic on the question. But disbelieving claims that lack good evidence? That hardly suggests a comprehensive ideological viewpoint.

Quote: To believe in spiritual reality is simply to believe that something exists that transcends our ability to perceive it by natural means. Sure, that's not a proof in itself, but you could argue that it's likely.

---

That's absurd.  Either there is evidence of something or there is not.  You have nothing to support your beliefs.  Your god is as phony as Osiris or Viracocha.

(March 1, 2018 at 2:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The funny thing is that there is just as much evidence for the FSM as there is for his godboy.  IOW, none.

It depends on what you mean by "FSM" (I assume you're referring to the classic flying spaghetti monster analogy. How unoriginal). Why don't you explain flying spaghetti monster theology proper to me. What are its attributes, nature, ontology relative to natural space-time, etc.? Let's define it a bit and see how it compares to the Christian concept of God.

Why don't you look it up?  I'm not your fucking secretary.

(March 1, 2018 at 4:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Why don't you look it up?  I'm not your fucking secretary.

You made the claim; I'm asking you to justify it. You can't claim that two things are the same and then attack the idea without justification. What if what I find online about the FSM contradicts the presuppositions in your head about the FSM you don't believe in? What if your concept of the FSM differs from the Christian God in such a way that certain deductive and inductive arguments favor one over the other? Things are rarely quite as simple as they seem.

(March 1, 2018 at 3:20 pm)stretch3172 Wrote:

(March 1, 2018 at 12:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Most don't assume there is no god, we just go with what the evidence tells us.

Since nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist then anything that requires the supernatural to be a thing is a t best unproven but more likely complete hogwash.

That's a fair point. But consider this: our five senses are obviously quite limited compared to those of other animals. Similarly, all quantitative, empirical measurements must be based on a limited number of significant figures because our scientific instruments are only accurate to a certain mathematical degree. There's no problem with going in favor of evidence, but our "evidence" is based on our extremely limited means of perceiving reality. To believe in spiritual reality is simply to believe that something exists that transcends our ability to perceive it by natural means. Sure, that's not a proof in itself, but you could argue that it's likely.

---

(March 1, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Thank you for engaging, stretch, that goes a long way with me. It's not helping people with their homework that bugs me so much as them running off without engaging in any dialogue with us.

I went to USC as well!

I understand that. And nice! It's a great school once you get around the terrible parking lol.

---

(March 1, 2018 at 1:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's not an ideology, either. It a single opinion on a single topic. So is theism. One opinion does not a belief system, ideology, or religion make. It might help to think of the 'ism' in atheism and theism to be like the 'ism' in albinism or metabolism: a condition or state of being. Atheism is the condition of not holding a belief in a deity and theism is the condition of holding such a belief. If all you know about someone is that they're a theist, do you know what their culture, ideology, or religion is? They could be a Buddhist (not all of them), a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a deist, or a 'mere theist' who does not practice any religion, just believes there is some sort of God and so on.

An atheist could be a Buddhist, communist, a humanist, a rational skeptic, a 'cultural Christian', a Unitarian, etc.

Atheism and theism can be features of a culture, ideology, or religion, but they are not any those things in themselves. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in any God or gods, and the only thing all theists have in common is that they all believe at least one god or God is real.

However, there is a social movement, sometimes called the 'atheist movement' that encompasses several things, but you don't have to be an atheist to be in it or support it. It's an umbrella term for a group of ideas and activism that typically includes the idea that atheists should be treated equally in the eyes of the law and not be discriminated against, barred from public office, bullied, or harassed. It naturally goes hand in hand with the idea that separation of government and religion (political secularism) is a good idea. A lot (but not all) of people who could be described as 'supporting the movement' also promote reasonable skepticism, avoidance of conspiracy theories and quack medical practices, and social justice for minorities and women. You can be a devout Christian, Hindu, or Muslim and support all of that; but atheists are definitely the majority. That might be the 'atheist culture' you're thinking of, but the majority of atheists are not part of it, though the majority of atheists on this forum might be considered part of it. Most atheists don't even hang out on sites like this, or really do anything but live their lives like anyone else except for not going to church, and some of us even do that. Like many others I was an atheist without reference to Dawkin's 'The God Delusion'.

You see much less of this kind of 'atheist movement' in the UK because atheists face much less judgmentalism and resistance there. Atheist groups on Meetup would be much less common if American culture didn't treat atheists in such a way that they are often 'in the closet'.

Maybe some of this information will be useful for your assignment. Full disclosure: I consider myself an atheistic humanist rational skeptic Unitarian who thinks there is merit in Buddhism and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus.

---

It's more of a conclusion than an assumption, for those of us who used to be theists, at least.

I know atheists who believe in ghosts, atheists who believe in reincarnation, and atheists who believe in astrology. Could you be more specific on what philosophical questions in which merely not believing in God (or gods) influences one's response? Clearly being an atheist doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, for instance. Besides the philosophical question 'is there a God', or philosophical questions that presume God, what do you mean?

As I said, I understand that there will be many drastic contextual differences between each individual atheist, and these differences will be numerous and complex. That said, I am attempting to focus primarily on the worldviews themselves, and I will simply have to address those specific differences in religion, culture, background, etc. as I come to them. Also, I am also including agnostics (both theistic and atheistic) in my project, and I am also looking at their different epistemological standards as well. 

Concerning your question: I believe the most obvious philosophical area in which atheism is relevant is axiology (ethics). To the Christian, ethical concepts such as right and wrong, just an unjust, good and evil, etc. are objective categories established by God according to universal principles (not unlike the concept of Plato's "Forms"). For the atheist, there must be some other way of understanding these, since there are no such objective standards. Most atheists would say that these concepts simply evolved with each particular culture, which obviously suggests that even the most barbaric acts against fellow humans can be "good," "just," or "moral", provided that the relevant culture says so. Therefore, all philosophical questions related to the origin/nature of any form of ethical standard(s) present fairly complicated challenges for atheists of any stripe, which is why many extremely complicated theories have developed in moral philosophy over the centuries.

I find ethics to be fairly easy to justify. It is clear what human well being is in terms of physical and mental health, including satisfying interactions with others. Ethics is the promotion of human well being.

A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions. This requires knowledge of the consequences of ones actions as well as caring enough for others to modify actions based on their effects. Now, it is quite possible (and even true) that actions that are beneficial in one situation are detrimental in another. So, the good person is one that is aware of their situation and those of others. While I believe in situational ethics to some extent, it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being. The vast majority of real, day to day, ethics is pretty straightforward. The dilemmas philosophers like to discuss rarely come up in practice. The one place that is less true is in medicine, where resource limitations and other issues make for pressing ethical questions. But even there, the standard of human well being is and should be central.

Two things are important. Thinking without caring or caring without thinking both cause innumerable problems. BOTH are required to be good. Having a good heart and acting foolishly does help anyone. 

On the other hand, I have never understood why having a deity helps in resolving moral issues. First, it is far from clear that simply being the creator of a universe makes one a moral authority. Second even if someone *is* a moral authority, if their goals are not those of human well being, they should be dismissed as bad. And yes, this is as true of deities as it is for people. Third, the whole idea of moral submission is, to me, a dereliction of our duty to think for ourselves. So even if there is a deity that is good, I would see the viewpoint of such a deity as a *recommendation* and not a requirement for moral behavior. In a sense, I consider religious faith to be a moral bad.

A Christian who kudosed my post about annilingus......... how can THAT be a true Christian?! Lol.