I Am Not An Atheist

[history_geek]

I Am Not An Atheist -DiscoveringReligion

Atheism is a label theists place on those, who do not follow theistic philosophies, and for convenience sake, most atheists go along, myself included. Therefore, if anyone is going to attempt to label another person,  one should do so according to what they actaully believe. Although I find labeling oneself to be an arbitary practice, because, no one set of princibles can acompance all the nuances of someones individual beliefs. If I had to give myself a label, the closest philosophy I can identify with, would be that of Secular Humanism...
However, if I were to meet you for the first time and identify myself as an atheist, it would tell you absolutely nothing about who I am, or what I believe. It would only tell you what I am not, and what I do not believe...

This quote only covers a part of the point in the video, but the bottom line really is that Atheism is rather useless as a label, as it really doesn't tell anyone anything about you, and it might be better if we stopped using it. And I do, in a way, agree. Just think of how many times I've been forced to explain just what atheism is by defenition, and then going on to explain why it is not impossible for me to believe something like the existance of a soul, is just about every time I engage in a conversation with a new person I come across with (though I mainly discuss about things like this exclusivly online....). So in that sense, just because I tell someone I am an "atheist" is of little use in a way of introduction. But really, I have no idea what I could use instead, or if I should just drop the label game all together (something that I have thought about before, though not as much as now).

Hmm, should we make a seperate topic about this? I think the discussion would be interesting....

[Davin]

Labels have their uses as a way to define oneself and others in blurry detail. Those that improperly (imo), use labels to corral their opponent or to attempt to make their opponent seem inferior will not be disuaded from their cause merely because you do not use the label. Those that take labels to be the blurry innaccurate descriptors that they are, do find it useful. When one says "that is a dog", it doesn't describe every nuance of the dog, but the blurry label is still very useful.

[Stevil]

I Am Not An Atheist -DiscoveringReligion

Atheism is a label theists place on those, who do not follow theistic philosophies, and for convenience sake, most atheists go along, myself included. Therefore, if anyone is going to attempt to label another person,  one should do so according to what they actaully believe. Although I find labeling oneself to be an arbitary practice, because, no one set of princibles can acompance all the nuances of someones individual beliefs. If I had to give myself a label, the closest philosophy I can identify with, would be that of Secular Humanism...
However, if I were to meet you for the first time and identify myself as an atheist, it would tell you absolutely nothing about who I am, or what I believe. It would only tell you what I am not, and what I do not believe...

This quote only covers a part of the point in the video, but the bottom line really is that Atheism is rather useless as a label, as it really doesn't tell anyone anything about you

I don't think this is true, I am currently exploring a potential concept of the philosophical consequence/conclusions of Atheism.

It is difficult because:
- People don't like generalisations
- Atheists don't have an organisation that explores the philosophical consequence/conclusions of Atheism.
- Many Atheists are content with holding to the position of "I don't know" rather than trying to force out a philosophically consistent and logical conclusion about something.
- Atheists don't want to be part of a religion and an attempt to mould a philosophically consistent and logical conclusion about Atheism seems like an attempt to turn Atheism into a religion

But I don't think it is impossible.
Theists (e.g. Christianity) have been defining their philosophically consistent and logical consequence/conclusions for thousands of years. So Atheists are very much on the backfoot. Due to the influence of theism on our language (word definition, concepts, common phrases) we are again on the backfoot.

So Atheist means "lacking a belief in any god", how can something so simple be an "ism"?
Well if you look at Christianity their position is incredibly simple as well. "Belief in Jesus Christ as the son/human incarnation of an all powerful, perfect entity that created existence". Again it doesn't seem like an "ism".
But although they have their scripture, I don't think it really matters what is written in their scripture. The scripture could tell stories of a blood lusting, murderous, dictator of a god killing people left right and centre for trivial reasons or no reason at all but that is all beside the point, Christians will reinterpret the scripture to be consistent with  "Belief in Jesus Christ as the son/human incarnation of an all powerful, perfect entity that created existence". They may as well not have scripture.

I feel we can derive that a lack in a god belief means that there is no objective morality. This means that we have the right to do anything that is physically possible. This does not mean that we should do whatever pleases the individual. This means we need to find a way for a society to function. This does not mean we need an Authoritarian or Unitarian government. It means society needs to be ruled in a way that collectively represents the individuals within society, respecting their physical rights and infringing where necessary towards a goal of a functioning society but justifying to the individuals of society why these infringements are taking place. We could quite easily tie the Golden Rule into Atheism if we were to explore and define a philosophically consistent and logical consequence/conclusions to being an Atheist.

Of course people fall outside of this. We cannot disown Stalin from being an Atheist because he wanted to rule over society rather than to represent society.

[Pharaoh Cat]

To me the key is to ask the question, why atheist?  For example, I'm an atheist because I'm an empiricist.  I reject the actuality of anything that can't be empirically verified.  Furthermore, I'm a hard agnostic, in that I claim it is impossible to empirically verify the existence of God, and will remain so forever.

I view reality as threefold: (1) the actual, empirically verified; (2) the theoretically possible but as yet unrealized or undiscovered; (3) fanciful nonsense that exists only in the imagination of sapients, contemplated for the fun of it.

God is category 2 and will remain so forever.  Believing in category 2 entities is silly.  Hoping in them is a different story.  An atheist could hope there's a God and remain logically consistent.

[Stevil]

(2) the theoretically possible but as yet unrealized or undiscovered;

God is category 2 and will remain so forever. 

I doubt that god is theoretically possible, so I would put it into category 3.

But then again, there is no clear definition of what a god is, maybe I am a god, I sure hope so, it would add a great purpose to my life.

[Pharaoh Cat]

I doubt that god is theoretically possible, so I would put it into category 3.

Hard atheist, then?  A created universe is impossible? 

Most atheists I have met are of the soft variety, as I am, because no one yet has decisively argued why a created universe is impossible.  Soft atheists simply decline to believe in a created universe because there isn't any evidence to support the claim.  I then take the next step, to hard agnosticism, claiming no evidence will ever be found, because evidence by its very nature as empirically verifiable will always reside on our creaturely side of the Creator/creature divide, and anything on our side could have been caused by something else on our side, more plausibly than by something on the other side.

I would believe in Cthulhu before I would ever believe in a Creator.  But a Creator who hides will probably always be theoretically possible.

[Stevil]

I doubt that god is theoretically possible, so I would put it into category 3.

Hard atheist, then?  A created universe is impossible? 

I would believe in Cthulhu before I would ever believe in a Creator.  But a Creator who hides will probably always be theoretically possible.

I haven't said that it is impossible, just that I doubt it is theoretically possible.
Show me a valid theory? Not just myth, something with at least some substance.
If we could prove that something can exist in the metaphysical realm them maybe it would be theoretically possible.
But at the moment it is pure fiction.

[Pharaoh Cat]

I would believe in Cthulhu before I would ever believe in a Creator.  But a Creator who hides will probably always be theoretically possible.

I haven't said that it is impossible, just that I doubt it is theoretically possible.
Show me a valid theory? Not just myth, something with at least some substance.

Oh.  You're using "theoretically" differently than I am.  I don't mean to say, "A scientific theory could be proposed for the possibility of a created universe, such that, a falsifiable hypothesis could be tested via experiement so as to prove or disprove the possibility of a created universe."  I would never say that, because, like you, I doubt such a statement would be accurate.

All I was saying was, "A created universe isn't obviously impossible, nor can subtle reasoning deduce its impossibility."

[Stevil]

I would believe in Cthulhu before I would ever believe in a Creator.  But a Creator who hides will probably always be theoretically possible.

All I was saying was, "A created universe isn't obviously impossible, nor can subtle reasoning deduce its impossibility."

I agree with that.

[Amicale]

When it comes to my preferred label, I tell everyone 'secular humanist' -- the secular implies a non-focus on theism, whereas the humanist (at least hopefully!) implies a preference for rationality, compassion, and an interest in/focus on my fellow human beings and our progress generally. But occasionally, I've had a friend or family member ask 'Oh, what does secular humanist mean?' in which case, I'm happy to unpack it for them to the best of my ability.