"Laughing At Religion" Meme Thread

[Sheldon]

[Angrboda]

TheWhiteMarten

"We are killing you with the explicit goal of making the Soviet Union an atheist society."

"Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with atheism."

I think part of the issue here is that you and Sheldon are using different definitions of the word "atheism." 

Traditionally, atheism is the proposition that no gods exist. Using this proposition as a starting point, people may conclude further things. 

This is incorrect. Atheism, even in the philosophical sense, refers to a propositional attitude, not to the proposition itself. Thus:

In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well. For example, Robin Le Poidevin writes, “An atheist is one who denies the existence of a personal, transcendent creator of the universe, rather than one who simply lives his life without reference to such a being” (1996: xvii). J. L. Schellenberg says that “in philosophy, the atheist is not just someone who doesn’t accept theism, but more strongly someone who opposes it.” In other words, it is “the denial of theism, the claim that there is no God” (2019: 5).

This definition is also found in multiple encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophy. For example, in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, William L. Rowe (also an atheist) writes, “Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief” (2000: 62). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy recognizes multiple senses of the word “atheism”, but is clear about which is standard in philosophy:

"[Atheism is] the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in god and is consistent with agnosticism [in the psychological sense]. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)"

Interestingly, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy recommends a slight broadening of the standard definition of “atheist”. It still requires rejection of belief in God as opposed to merely lacking that belief, but the basis for the rejection need not be that theism is false. For example, it might instead be that it is meaningless.

"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic [in the epistemological sense] maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence “God exists” expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an atheist is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not the reason for the rejection is the claim that “God exists” expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. (Edwards 2006: 358)"

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Atheism

Do note that though the author sloppily conflates the proposition with the propositional attitude when he writes, "“atheism” is standardly defined in philosophy as the proposition that God does not exist," it's clear from the definitions that he quotes that it refers to the propositional attitude, not the proposition. The other definition refers to the identity of one who holds such a propositional attitude. Propositions themselves may be instrumental in forming the description of atheists and atheism, the proposition "god does not exist" is neither atheism nor atheist. It's not even atheistic, as a theist may deny the proposition, so the proposition itself has no necessary owner.

For example, if it's true that the Soviets held the belief that no gods exist, then it may well have been a crucial part of their decision-making concerning their ethical and political decisions. So for them, their atheism certainly was an important part of their political program.

States are not minds such that they can have propositional attitudes. The policies of a state may be more or less friendly toward specific religious attitudes and practices, and the ideologies which drive them may be similarly friendly or hostile towards specific religious behaviors, but the policies and ideologies remain those of the specific policies and ideologies. They may, depending upon one's perspective, be more atheistic or more theistic, but neither the state nor the ideologies become atheist or atheism as a consequence. And in this particular case, the ideology driving the state policies was one based upon an economic theory rather than a religious one. Thus the Soviet state enacted policies congruent with an ideology which was not atheism. Indeed, from a philosophical perspective, it is largely irrelevant to Marx and Communists whether or not any gods exist as the concern is not the metaphysical question but rather one of the political, psychological, and social power of religions and their tendency to work at cross-purposes with those of the Communist state and its ideal.

It's worth noting that Buddhism, while ostensibly compatible with Communism, was initially treated with tolerance by the Soviet state, but that tolerance quickly devolved into outright antagonism and hostility towards Buddhism and Buddhists (link). Likewise, Buddhism and Buddhists have not fared much better under other Communist regimes such as those in China and Cambodia. The proponent has to answer why, if these Communist states were basing their policies upon atheistic goals, the Buddhists were targeted as well?

[Mister Agenda]

Then why are you wrongly equating the acts of atheists to atheism?

I'm just following the example other posters have set.

I think I missed that. Would you please point to a post where an atheist equated an act of theists to theism?

Edit: Never mind, immediately found it.

[Mister Agenda]

Since you're struggling I will help you out, atheism has no doctrinal beliefs or dogma to follow. Thus your claim about the former Soviet Union made no sense, atheists are to blame for the things they do, atheism is not. It's a fundamental error I have seen many theists make. In stark contrast if a theist goes out and kills someone they believe to be a witch, or buys and owns slaves, because the bible says...well I think even you should be able to join the dots from there. 

A quibble. I think it undermines your point if you follow the difference between atheist and atheism with a point conflating Christians and theism. If a Christian kills a witch because the Bible tells them to, they killed in the name of Christianity, not theism.

[Mister Agenda]

TheWhiteMarten

"We are killing you with the explicit goal of making the Soviet Union an atheist society."

"Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with atheism."

I think part of the issue here is that you and Sheldon are using different definitions of the word "atheism." 

Traditionally, atheism is the proposition that no gods exist. Using this proposition as a starting point, people may conclude further things. 

For example, if it's true that the Soviets held the belief that no gods exist, then it may well have been a crucial part of their decision-making concerning their ethical and political decisions. So for them, their atheism certainly was an important part of their political program.

Sheldon, however, is using a newer definition of "atheism" which is popular now on the Internet. For him, the word simply means a lack of belief in any god, and implies nothing further. By his definition, if a person says, "I am an atheist," we know nothing except that he lacks belief in certain propositions. 

From this, he concludes that the Soviet atrocities were motivated by something other than simple lack. If atheism is ONLY and ALWAYS simply lack, then it can not lead to further conclusions. 

People who are more familiar with the older definition sometimes call Sheldon's definition "lacktheism." 

I was interested to see that recently the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been edited to include Sheldon's preferred definition. They call this "psychological atheism." While at the same time reiterating that in philosophy, the standard definition remains "the position that no gods exist." 

Some lacktheists argue that since atheism is a nothing -- merely an empty space where belief might have gone -- then nothing can be concluded from a lacktheist position and no results -- good or bad -- can be attributed to it.

I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you before that the lack of belief definition has been around since the 1800s.

[Sheldon]

TheWhiteMarten

"We are killing you with the explicit goal of making the Soviet Union an atheist society."

"Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with atheism."

I think part of the issue here is that you and Sheldon are using different definitions of the word "atheism." 

Traditionally, atheism is the proposition that no gods exist. Using this proposition as a starting point, people may conclude further things. 

All you need for common usage is a dictionary, and the definition is unequivocally clear, archaic definitions and niche archaic philosophical terms don't obviously always reflect common usage), so if he's (or anyone else) is using something other than the current dictionary definition, which reflects common usage, then it is incumbent on them to say so, and say why. Any word, and any topic. 

For example, if it's true that the Soviets held the belief that no gods exist, then it may well have been a crucial part of their decision-making concerning their ethical and political decisions. So for them, their atheism certainly was an important part of their political program.

This misses the point, atheism has no dogma or doctrine, thus it is nonsensical to imply atheism motivates anyone to do anything. What atheists are motivated to do, is entirely down to them, not atheism per se. 

Sheldon, however, is using a newer definition of "atheism" which is popular now on the Internet. For him, the word simply means a lack of belief in any god, and implies nothing further. By his definition, if a person says, "I am an atheist," we know nothing except that he lacks belief in certain propositions. 

No it's not a new definition, the one currently reflecting common usage has been around for quite a while. It certainly predates the internet, but you are correct that when I use a word, you can assume I am always referring to the current primary dictionary definition, and I would state clearly if I was deviating from that common usage, or from the primary definition of a word if I felt the explanation was apropos. 

From this, he concludes that the Soviet atrocities were motivated by something other than simple lack. If atheism is ONLY and ALWAYS simply lack, then it can not lead to further conclusions. 

I would appreciate it if you didn't tell others what I think, they can ask me for clarification if they need it. The lack of a belief can of course lead to further conclusions, and while atheists obviously hold beliefs, even a belief that no deity exists, atheism is not itself a belief. If atheism were a generic belief that no deity exists, then someone like me for example, who does not believe any deity exists, but who does not hold a generic belief that no deities exist (as it is unfalsifiable), would not be an atheist. 

people who are more familiar with the older definition sometimes call Sheldon's definition "lacktheism." 

All they need do is look in any dictionary, and like asymptomatic, asexual, and amoral, the a.. in atheism donates a lack of theistic belief. Though again this is off topic, from our trolling friends original claim. As whether one holds a generic belief no deities exist or not, atheism still has no dogma or doctrine, the Soviets added that themselves. Unlike theisms like Christianity and Islam and Judaism, for example, all of which come with masses of doctrine and dogma. 

I was interested to see that recently the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been edited to include Sheldon's preferred definition. 

It is not "my preferred definition", it is the current dictionary definition, and thus reflects common usage. how many people read the Stanford encyclopaedia of Philosophy? If someone wants to use a definition from that fine, but they'd need to use it in context and be clear why, using it to label atheists in a generic way (in my experience) is usually done dishonestly to peddle straw men, I've seen it cited many times by apologists, almost as if they Googled the definition they wanted to create a lazy stereotype, and found that ref. 
Again, for clarity, none of this matters in the context of his claim about the soviets, as beyond the claim no deity exists (in that definition) atheism still has no doctrine or dogma. It's like claiming not believing in dragons motivated the Yorkshire Ripper to kill prostitutes.

They call this "psychological atheism." While at the same time reiterating that in philosophy, the standard definition remains "the position that no gods exist." 

Which of course would mean that I am not an atheist, despite not believing any deity exists, so I shall let everyone decide how useful outside of niche philosophy that definition is. 

Some lacktheists argue that since atheism is a nothing -- merely an empty space where belief might have gone -- then nothing can be concluded from a lacktheist position and no results -- good or bad -- can be attributed to it.

I have read that three times, and it still it makes no sense, why do we need such word salad, when the dictionary currently reflects common usage. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity, thus anyone who lacks that belief is an atheist, this would include any atheist who also held a generic belief that no deity exists. Good and bad, whilst subjective, can be assigned to people's actions, and to doctrine or dogma, it is nonsensical to to assign such terms to the absence of a single belief. Is not believing in mermaids bad or good?
NB we don't need that term, atheism and atheist (the current common usage) amply define what is meant. 
The abuses of human rights under Stalinism and in the former Soviet union had nothing to do with atheism, it was down to the atheists who made those choices.

[The Grand Nudger]

A quibble. I think it undermines your point if you follow the difference between atheist and atheism with a point conflating Christians and theism. If a Christian kills a witch because the Bible tells them to, they killed in the name of Christianity, not theism.

Exactly, the belief that gods exist, just like the belief that they do not, does not imply or entail any further thing.  People could imagine better gods, its a testament to their purpose that we largely have not.  A belief in gods in and of itself is not even religious, merely superstitious.  Religion requires a moral comment.  Statements about how the world should be, the shape of a good life, and what duties people have towards the advancement of those normative goals.  

The most common religious position (or psuedo-religious if we prefer) for atheists in the us is humanism.  It makes little sense to say that humanists don't understand the sanctity of human life for example - as it's right there on the tin.  Meanwhile, christer gods child killing soul forge ideology allows no sanctity whatsoever for human life.  Sanctity is vested within god and extends only insomuch as god grants it.  Our lives aren't sacred or inviolable..it allegedly violates them all the damned time and even went so far as to create a world that would violate them as a matter of course with no specific intervention required.

So, if a person who genuinely believes in this soul forge and genuinely believes in some gods decree to off a witch and genuinely believes it would be better for the individual or communities souls to do so goes and kills a witch, they're not doing christianity wrong. They're right on point, and their christianity is the cause. Those people will often feel genuinely conflicted by their beliefs in this regard, fwiw...but must ultimately consider it an unfortunate consequence of their commitment to the soul forging god. Christians that pull back from this are only pulling back from christian ideology. Imagining that god is a humanist now......like so many of them have become.

[Fake Messiah]

[Belacqua]

I think part of the issue here is that you and Sheldon are using different definitions of the word "atheism." 

Traditionally, atheism is the proposition that no gods exist. Using this proposition as a starting point, people may conclude further things. 

For example, if it's true that the Soviets held the belief that no gods exist, then it may well have been a crucial part of their decision-making concerning their ethical and political decisions. So for them, their atheism certainly was an important part of their political program.

Sheldon, however, is using a newer definition of "atheism" which is popular now on the Internet. For him, the word simply means a lack of belief in any god, and implies nothing further. By his definition, if a person says, "I am an atheist," we know nothing except that he lacks belief in certain propositions. 

From this, he concludes that the Soviet atrocities were motivated by something other than simple lack. If atheism is ONLY and ALWAYS simply lack, then it can not lead to further conclusions. 

People who are more familiar with the older definition sometimes call Sheldon's definition "lacktheism." 

I was interested to see that recently the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been edited to include Sheldon's preferred definition. They call this "psychological atheism." While at the same time reiterating that in philosophy, the standard definition remains "the position that no gods exist." 

Some lacktheists argue that since atheism is a nothing -- merely an empty space where belief might have gone -- then nothing can be concluded from a lacktheist position and no results -- good or bad -- can be attributed to it.

I'm pretty sure I've pointed out to you before that the lack of belief definition has been around since the 1800s.

I expect you're right. 

As I understand it, the Greek equivalent was a pejorative, so it was different from either of the English meanings. Then it got into English from French in the 16th century sometime. That was in the sense of active disbelief.

But of course people use words differently, and meanings evolve. I just want to make sure that the people who use it in the sense of lacktheism are aware that not everyone understands it that way. Any time a word is polysemous it's probably better to say at the beginning which sense you're using. 

Probably we've also spoken in the past about how a lacktheist position doesn't actually mean that an atheist has nothing to explain or defend. I hope people aren't using it as an evasion -- to pretend that they don't have things they hold to be true regarding religious belief. And of course these things they hold to be true may be challenged and defended. The common claim, "I don't believe because there's no evidence," of course contains assumptions about what constitutes evidence, etc., and isn't simply an empty space.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still fucking the chicken. Still no further conclusions from atheism defined as a belief that gods do not exist. Particular beliefs about evidentiary standards are not atheism.