[Serious] Absolutes and Atheism

[Angrboda]

Do we get to make shit up the same way that theists make up gods? I think if we're talking make-believe, there's no limit. If not, please produce a god.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses.

[Neo-Scholastic]

We don't expect theists to only have one religion in common, why would you expect atheists to only have one philosophy in common?

I, for one, have no such expectation. At the same time, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in the divine, then it is a kind of hole. IMHO holes are, in their own way a thing and can have their own unique qualities. So it is right an proper atheism would be variously expressed in the intellectual life of individual atheists, just as theistic belief manifests itself in various ways. If a hole, a true physical lack, can have size and shape then so also an intellectual hole can be described by the extent to which it fails to inform other beliefs. And maybe the hole isn't really about the divine as-such; but rather the function served by belief in the divine.

Personally I'm a rational skeptic epistemologically (or at least I try) a humanist morally, a moderate/progressive liberal politically, and I suppose a classicist when it comes to logic; but I'm probably limited by my education in that regard. I've not always been a humanist rational skeptic moderate/progressive liberal; I will modify them as needed based on evidence or reasoning new to me.

All I can say is that those positions (except the political ones) are very heavily foundationalist. Most refutations of theistic arguments are attacks against foundationalism. I am not saying they are not valid refutations and for the sake of this thread I am not defending them. All I am saying is that the skeptical approach is kind of a double-edged sword. Skeptics deny the efficacy of human reason. And the efficacy of reason is one of the foundational principles of classical theism. So the skeptics method of disposing of theism also disposes them of appeal to reason. YMMV

[Silver]

If we're referring to holes, theism itself is merely the filling of the hole where reason should reside. An issue with theism is that it always considers itself grand in the scheme of human understanding, but in actuality it throws a veil of blindness over its adherents.

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't expect theists to only have one religion in common, why would you expect atheists to only have one philosophy in common?

I, for one, have no such expectation. At the same time, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in the divine, then it is a kind of hole. IMHO holes are, in their own way a thing and can have their own unique qualities. So it is right an proper atheism would be variously expressed in the intellectual life of individual atheists, just as theistic belief manifests itself in various ways. If a hole, a true physical lack, can have size and shape then so also an intellectual hole can be described by the extent to which it fails to inform other beliefs. And maybe the hole isn't really about the divine as-such; but rather the function served by belief in the divine.

Personally I'm a rational skeptic epistemologically (or at least I try) a humanist morally, a moderate/progressive liberal politically, and I suppose a classicist when it comes to logic; but I'm probably limited by my education in that regard. I've not always been a humanist rational skeptic moderate/progressive liberal; I will modify them as needed based on evidence or reasoning new to me.

All I can say is that those positions (except the political ones) are very heavily foundationalist. Most refutations of theistic arguments are attacks against foundationalism. I am not saying they are not valid refutations and for the sake of this thread I am not defending them. All I am saying is that the skeptical approach is kind of a double-edged sword. Skeptics deny the efficacy of human reason. And the efficacy of reason is one of the foundational principles of classical theism. So the skeptics method of disposing of theism also disposes them of appeal to reason. YMMV

Sure, the issue is that a god shaped hole does not amount to any of the "x" shaped holes you were lead to believe it did.  To be blunt, that you even expected it would means that there's a giant gaping hole in your christology.  

Before christ was a twinkle in anyone's eye, people already believed in the shit you think can only come from christ. That's where your proto christians got the idea..in the first place.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There are no holes 

[Deesse23]

At the same time, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in the divine,

It IS, my friend, it IS.

then it is a kind of hole. IMHO holes are, in their own way a thing and can have their own unique qualities.

False equivalence
Why is it so hard to understand for someone like you that "i dont believe in a god", means that, just that? There are no necessary further philosophical or intellectual implications from this.period.
Your incredulity to this very simple fact does not change this very simple fact.

So it is right an proper atheism would be variously expressed in the intellectual life of individual atheists, just as theistic belief manifests itself in various ways.

Want me to lecture you on "proper belief"? No? Then please cut this crap
Atheism manifests itelf in one and ONE way: "I dont f.ing believe in a god.period.aaaand.end".

If a hole, a true physical lack

A hole is defined by the stuff around it.
Listen to yourself how desperately you are tryign to portray atheism as "just another belief". Why is that? Do you maybe realize, deep inside, how weak your position is?

, can have size and shape then so also an intellectual hole can be described by the extent to which it fails to inform other beliefs.

Finally you have (accidentally, per your silly false equivocation) acknowledged that atheism "fails to inform about other beliefs"
Seriously drop that silly false equivocation. Its embarrassingly stupid. Please leve philosophy to people who know wtf they are talking about.

And maybe the hole isn't really about the divine as-such; but rather the function served by belief in the divine.

And maybe you are now just talking out of your rear end.

And the efficacy of reason is one of the foundational principles of classical theism. So the skeptics method of disposing of theism also disposes them of appeal to reason.

What a cheap attempt of painting sceptics as unresonable (as opposed to theists). Dont we deserve more effort from your side? Come on, dont be so intellectually lazy.
Show us how reasonable you are. Why do you believe in (whichever) god? Give us your BEST argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

At best..at absolute best, there are things that Neo thinks -because jesus- that other people don't think. A significant portion of people who don't believe whatever Neo believes actually do believe in christ, for whatever godforsaken reason. So maybe atheism isn't an actual worldview, and isn't interesting...but neither is "christianity".

[arewethereyet]

Here is the absolute for me, an atheist, I don't believe in a god or gods. Period, end of story. Atheism is not anything else. It's not a worldview, it's not a set of guidelines for living, it's not a religion, it's absence of belief in one of the many god-based stories that float around and try to infiltrate the lives of everyone, as in, my set of beliefs are the right ones and should be followed by everyone.

It's so damn simple. No belief in a god or gods.

It's theists who try to make it be more than that.

[Mister Agenda]

Personally I'm a rational skeptic epistemologically (or at least I try) a humanist morally, a moderate/progressive liberal politically, and I suppose a classicist when it comes to logic; but I'm probably limited by my education in that regard. I've not always been a humanist rational skeptic moderate/progressive liberal; I will modify them as needed based on evidence or reasoning new to me.

All I can say is that those positions (except the political ones) are very heavily foundationalist. Most refutations of theistic arguments are attacks against foundationalism. I am not saying they are not valid refutations and for the sake of this thread I am not defending them. All I am saying is that the skeptical approach is kind of a double-edged sword. Skeptics deny the efficacy of human reason. And the efficacy of reason is one of the foundational principles of classical theism. So the skeptics method of disposing of theism also disposes them of appeal to reason. YMMV

My mileage varies greatly since I am a rational skeptic, not an academic/philosophical skeptic. Rational skepticism is also known as scientific skepticism; it's basically a compromise between rationalism and empiricism.