Guys. Hello.

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

But what is the philosophical underpinning for rejection of God?

Is it Naturalism? Empiricism? Materialism?

Thanks.

Science.

I would say naturalism, at least in my case. For some it may be different

(May 31, 2015 at 10:18 am)learncritic Wrote: metaphysical realities.

No such thing.

Your understanding of atheism is incorrect.  It is not the rejection of god, the afterlife, angels, heaven and hell, or satan.  
(you're welcome)

A possible philosophical underpinning for the rejection of god (for those that would reject god) might be moral/ethical objection...or just plain indifference. It's a really open ended question not entirely to do with atheism....what are the philosophical underpinnings for the rejection of chocolate ice cream?

What is a metaphysical reality?

(May 31, 2015 at 10:18 am)learncritic Wrote: Guys. Hello.

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

But what is the philosophical underpinning for rejection of God?

Is it Naturalism? Empiricism? Materialism?

Thanks.

The philosophical underpinning for rejection of God is the lack of worthwhile philosophical underpinning for God.

Metaphysical is by definition not reality.  

---

(May 31, 2015 at 10:29 am)Alex K Wrote: What is a metaphysical reality?

It is the dumb fuck illusion that things made up in a lazy pretense of explaining an imperfectly known reality is more real than the reality it purports to explain. 

The underpinnings of a disbelief in Yahweh is the lack of evidence that can't also be used to prove every other god people have believed in.

Just look at the trees, and tell me that's not proof of God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nature_deities

The underpinnings in the rejection of Yahweh, if he existed, could be various things. The superior morality of most modern audiences. The fact that the followers of Yahweh have been killing each other for thousands of years over how to follow him, so how is a non believer supposed to figure anything out? Among other things.

(May 31, 2015 at 10:18 am)learncritic Wrote: Guys. Hello.

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

But what is the philosophical underpinning for rejection of God?

Is it Naturalism? Empiricism? Materialism?

Thanks.

Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is a single position on a single issue:  the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all.  

It is not a general rejection of an afterlife, or any other supernatural idea although many atheists not believe in the supernatural generally.  Angels and Satan on the other hand are gods (supernaturally powerful beings) and lack of belief in them is required.

Many atheists including myself reach this position through skepticism, but it might be reached by any number of means including simply never have been indoctrinated in a religion.  No stance on naturalism, empiricism, or materialism is required.  Again, atheism is not a philosophy, it is a position on a single issue, the existence of god.

Nor is it necessary in order to be an atheist to believe that all or indeed any gods have been disproved. It is quite common to lack a belief in something's existence because that thing has not been proved and not because it's existence has been disproved.  Right now I lack a belief that there is a million dollars in my crawlspace, but I haven't proven it isn't there.  In fact is not really possible to prove the lack of existence of anything.

Nor yet is it a belief in a god coupled with a decision to reject that god.  Even if you are opposed to the only god you believe in, belief in a god would preclude you from being an atheist.  It's definitional.

(May 31, 2015 at 11:13 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(May 31, 2015 at 10:18 am)learncritic Wrote: Guys. Hello.

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

But what is the philosophical underpinning for rejection of God?

Is it Naturalism? Empiricism? Materialism?

Thanks.

Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is a single position on a single issue:  the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all.  

It is not a general rejection of an afterlife, or any other supernatural idea although many atheists not believe in the supernatural generally.  Angels and Satan on the other hand are gods (supernaturally powerful beings) and lack of belief in them is required.

Many atheists including myself reach this position through skepticism, but it might be reached by any number of means including simply never have been indoctrinated in a religion.  No stance on naturalism, empiricism, or materialism is required.  Again, atheism is not a philosophy, it is a position on a single issue, the existence of god.

Nor is it necessary in order to be an atheist to believe that all or indeed any gods have been disproved. It is quite common to lack a belief in something's existence because that thing has not been proved and not because it's existence has been disproved.  Right now I lack a belief that there is a million dollars in my crawlspace, but I haven't proven it isn't there.  In fact is not really possible to prove the lack of existence of anything.

Nor yet is it a belief in a god coupled with a decision to reject that god.  Even if you are opposed to the only god you believe in, belief in a god would preclude you from being an atheist.  It's definitional.

I really like your post a lot, very, very much, except for this:

"In fact is not really possible to prove the lack of existence of anything."

Right now, I have proof that there are no elephants existing in my dining room.  If there were any elephants in my dining room, they would be seen by me (and smelled, etc.).  So I know that there are no elephants existing in my dining room.

You, of course, do not have the proof, as you are not here to see for yourself.  But very likely, you have proof that there are no elephants existing in the room you are in (if you are in a room).

So it is possible to prove that something does not exist.


Also, there are descriptions that are self-contradictory, and one can know that they do not exist.  For example, I know that there are no married bachelors.  Married bachelors do not exist.  This is because to be a bachelor, one must not be married.

So we have another kind of possible proof that something does not exist.