The recent furore over Atheism+ has provoked my curiosity: Is atheism about all of humanity, or is atheism ideologically singular?

You see there are two ways you can go with atheism. On one hand, you may say "Atheism is the only truth, and we need to convert the world to our way of thinking". On the other hand, Atheism can see itself as coexisting with other beliefs, with the focus simply on protecting and preserving the rights and freedoms of atheists and converts to atheism.

These two positions have two starkly different perspectives on the truth. The first kind sees one singular objective truth: That atheism is the one true way to a humanist utopia. The other sees truth as subjective; Truth is whatever you make it, and everybody is free to go about it in their own way. The classic "coexist" bumper sticker exemplifies this position.

Which kind you are, and which kind atheism ought to be is a serious question.

The first position is much firmer, but carries the burden of a much higher epistemological weight. It says that there is objective truth out there, and presumes that atheism is it. Can atheism truly carry such a weight? Can we say that we have incontrovertible evidence that atheism is the right way of seeing the world?

To understand the nature of this claim we must delve into necessary and contingent facts. Necessary facts are necessarily true no matter what, in any possible world you can imagine. Some would argue that mathematical and logical truths reside in this category.

Contingent truths rely on certain other factors. For instance, the claim "it is raining outside" is true contingent to the reality of whether it really is raining outside. It might also be contingent on whether your sensory perceptions are accurate.

We cannot know whether atheism, or any kind of position about God is necessarily true unless we determine it is actual. It's tempting here to invoke modal logic, with the S5 possibly necessary to necessary modality, but this would, it seems to me, lead to two contradictory answers. Since both atheism and theism as we see it "can" be true, and if one is actually true it becomes necessarily true, we end up having two necessarily true but contradictory truths. Maybe someone who understands modal logic can sort this out for me here.

But until then, we have to take atheism as contingent or possibly true. I'll go over the implications of this in my next post.

Vincent Wrote:Is atheism about all of humanity, or is atheism ideologically singular?

Like any beleif system, it will vary from person to person. Some will say one, some the other and some will say something completely different.

Shouldn't you expect a wide and diverse range of answers.

Quote:Like any belief system,

One more time: atheism is NOT a belief system or ideology but their antithesis,a LACK of belief.

It is irrelevant what Vinny claims; the guy doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

(September 3, 2012 at 3:23 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: Like any beleif system...

Oh camon Scotty, I thought you knew this. Atheism is as much of a belief system as sexual abstinence is a sex position.

Next time I take my car to a mechanic, I'm going to do a Vinny. I'll list a lot of mechanical buzz words, without fully understanding the lack of relevance of what I'm saying... and then I'll see if he charges me more, when it becomes apparent that I don't know a carburetor from a spark-plug.

(September 3, 2012 at 1:22 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: The recent furore over Atheism+ has provoked my curiosity: Is atheism about all of humanity, or is atheism ideologically singular?

You see there are two ways you can go with atheism. On one hand, you may say "Atheism is the only truth, and we need to convert the world to our way of thinking". On the other hand, Atheism can see itself as coexisting with other beliefs, with the focus simply on protecting and preserving the rights and freedoms of atheists and converts to atheism.

These two positions have two starkly different perspectives on the truth. The first kind sees one singular objective truth: That atheism is the one true way to a humanist utopia. The other sees truth as subjective; Truth is whatever you make it, and everybody is free to go about it in their own way. The classic "coexist" bumper sticker exemplifies this position.

Which kind you are, and which kind atheism ought to be is a serious question.

The first position is much firmer, but carries the burden of a much higher epistemological weight. It says that there is objective truth out there, and presumes that atheism is it. Can atheism truly carry such a weight? Can we say that we have incontrovertible evidence that atheism is the right way of seeing the world?

To understand the nature of this claim we must delve into necessary and contingent facts. Necessary facts are necessarily true no matter what, in any possible world you can imagine. Some would argue that mathematical and logical truths reside in this category.

Contingent truths rely on certain other factors. For instance, the claim "it is raining outside" is true contingent to the reality of whether it really is raining outside. It might also be contingent on whether your sensory perceptions are accurate.

We cannot know whether atheism, or any kind of position about God is necessarily true unless we determine it is actual. It's tempting here to invoke modal logic, with the S5 possibly necessary to necessary modality, but this would, it seems to me, lead to two contradictory answers. Since both atheism and theism as we see it "can" be true, and if one is actually true it becomes necessarily true, we end up having two necessarily true but contradictory truths. Maybe someone who understands modal logic can sort this out for me here.

But until then, we have to take atheism as contingent or possibly true. I'll go over the implications of this in my next post.

Vinny is obviously a Christian pretending to be an atheist. He has been challenged to blaspheme God, naming specifically each member of the holy trinity and he has failed to do so while he continues to pretend to be an atheist.

I suggest that we don't respond to him UNTIL he blasphemes God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit or admit to everyone he's a dishonest Christian.

There is no difference between the two positions since atheism doesn't say that it is the only truth and it doesn't say that everyone should convert to it. What you are talking about is rationalism, which is a common, though not necessary ideology giving rise to the atheism. And there are no "two paths" within it. Both of your statements are part of the same path.

For example, I believe there is singular objective truth reality, that atheism is one of those truths and yes, that the world would be a better place if everyone thought in the same manner. But ultimately, I also think that they should be free to find their own way. That does not mean that I'm saying that there are subjective truths, it simply means that I recognize their right to delude themselves.

Quote:That does not mean that I'm saying that there are subjective truths, it simply means that I recognize their right to delude themselves.

I'm confused. Are you claiming there are objective truths?

Would you mind listing a few?


By a 'truth', I mean something about reality,which is absolute, certain and evidence based.

(September 3, 2012 at 5:34 am)padraic Wrote: I'm confused. Are you claiming there are objective truths?

Would you mind listing a few?

Sure, we can start with the simple ones. While I'm writing this sentence -
- It's raining outside
- Therefore, the monsoons are not over yet
- There are people getting wet outside.

And so on.

(September 3, 2012 at 5:34 am)padraic Wrote: By a 'truth', I mean something about reality,which is absolute, certain and evidence based.

Oh, is that what you mean by truth? What I meant was simply a statement regarding a fact of reality that may or may not be absolute (since reality changes all the time), may or may not be certain (since certainty is the aspect of observer, not the reality) and may or may not be evidence based (it is possible to make a factual statement without evidence).

Quote:Oh, is that what you mean by truth? What I meant was simply a statement regarding a fact of reality that may or may not be absolute (since reality changes all the time), may or may not be certain (since certainty is the aspect of observer, not the reality) and may or may not be evidence based (it is possible to make a factual statement without evidence).

For practical purposes, I like yours better.