Atheism

[Bubblepot]

I'm starting this thread for us all to voice our thoughts rather than our opinions; to dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against, as I think we'll all find it interesting, and I myself think it a healthy exercise, to try and understand other points of view besides my own. I'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy; and as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here. Atheism... the opposite and counterpart of "theism", which is itself another philosophy; one philosophy opposes another philosophy, and the parties of each are engulfed within their own philosophies while scarcely bringing to remembrance that wise Buddhist proverb: all philosophies must eventually come to an end. But if this is the case, then how is one philosophy superior over any other philosophy? I'd appreciate any thoughts.

[Asmodean]

Here is my view of atheism:

I do not believe in gods, therefor I am an atheist. The end.

[Bubblepot]

Mmm.... well, if you say so.

[Tom62]

Here is my view of atheism:

I do not believe in gods, therefor I am an atheist. The end.

Yeah!!

[Tank]

Allah does not exist, therefore I am an atheist. The end.

[The Magic Pudding]

all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Must an unbelief come to an end?
What do you call an ex unbelief?

[Asmodean]

What do you call an ex unbelief?

It's like in the Periodic Table of Elements. Just add un-s  :pop:

[Bubblepot]

all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Must an unbelief come to an end?
What do you call an ex unbelief?

I never said unbeliefs come to an end, only philosophies.

[Tank]

all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Must an unbelief come to an end?
What do you call an ex unbelief?

I never said unbeliefs come to an end, only philosophies.

You wrote 'all philosophies'. An assertion for which you have no evidence, and for which you never can have evidence because you would have to be immortal and omniscient to obtain said evidence.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy; and as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here.

I think my atheism is an unbelief, anyway I wish you well with your questioning Bubblepot.  

[Bubblepot]

I think my atheism is an unbelief, anyway I wish you well with your questioning Bubblepot.  

[Whitney]

atheist is not a philosophy..it does not provide a framework for understanding the world around us. (secular humanism, free-throught etc are atheistic philosophies)

Atheist is simply someone who does not have a belief in gods/deities.

[hackenslash]

I'm starting this thread for us all to voice our thoughts rather than our opinions; to dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against, as I think we'll all find it interesting, and I myself think it a healthy exercise, to try and understand other points of view besides my own.

Excellent. Then I hope you are actually open to other points of view. Let's begin:

I'm sure that many here, like me, view atheism as a philosophy;

I doubt that, since most of the members here are fully aware that atheism is merely the absence of a single class of belief. In that light, it cannot be a philosophy.

and as this section of the site is about philosophy I feel it consists with Reason to dwell upon atheism here.

Then let's do so. What particular aspect of not accepting the truth claims of others with regard to the existence of deities would you like to dwell upon? The not believing in deities aspect, or the not believing in deities aspect?

Atheism... the opposite and counterpart of "theism",

Except that it isn't the opposite of theism, merely the absence of it. The opposite would be a categorical claim in itself, and such categorical claims are generally embraced only by those whose faculties for critical thinking are under-developed. Atheism in its rigorous formulation neither erects nor supports any categorical claims of its own, it simply rejects the unsupported claims of others with regard to the existence of a deity.

which is itself another philosophy;

Actually, theism is not philosophy. It doesn't contain, nor does it seek, any knowledge, which is what philosophy is. Indeed, it is the antithesis of philosophy, as it categorically rejects the search for knowledge, not least because it thinks it already has the answers. The nearest that theism gets to philosophy is its worthless apologetics, which is not philosophy, although it likes to think it is, and uses some of the same language. This is not philosophy, though, it's theology, and it is about as much use as a fishnet condom.

one philosophy opposes another philosophy,

Which demonstrates why it isn't philosophy. Philosophy is the search for knowledge, and it can never oppose itself. Adherents to particular schools of thought can certainly oppose each other, but if they're as dogmatic about it as theism is, then it isn't philosophy, because true philosophy must embrace all schools of thought. Interestingly, the one school of thought that most philosophers oppose, in my experience, is the one school of thought that has actually provided concrete results in terms of our understanding of reality, namely empiricism.

 

and the parties of each are engulfed within their own philosophies while scarcely bringing to remembrance that wise Buddhist proverb: all philosophies must eventually come to an end.

Then they aren't engaged in philosophy, but apologetics. When your entire philosophical scope is wasted in supporting a particular worldview, you aren't doing philosophy, because you aren't seeking knowledge about the world. And when you do not alter your position when it is not in accord with what reality is telling us, your philosophy is rotten.

Oh, and your assessment of that Buddhist proverb as 'wise' is, in my opinion, wide of the mark.

But if this is the case, then how is one philosophy superior over any other philosophy? I'd appreciate any thoughts.

There is only one'philosophy, as I think I've made reasonably clear. As for schools of thought, there is one that is demonstrably superior to all others, because it has provided real and tangible results, and it has done so through a very simple but very powerful principle: That all ideas must be measured against what reality is telling us. That all ideas must be, in principle, open to being falsified. Any idea that is not testable and falsifiable constitutes no more than a rectally extracted blind assertion and, as such, it is worthless in the realm of ideas.

[Whitney]

o dwell upon rather than to argue either for or against

just noting that I'm obviously not going to use mod powers to enforce this requirement nor will I be following it...we all know everyone is going to want to debate and just stating opinions isn't really that helpful for truly understanding something.

[hackenslash]

Right, so we have philosophies of both belief and unbelief;

No. It could be argued that both belief and unbelief can stem from philosophy, but to suggest that they are philosophies is to commit a category error. Philosophy is a great tool for teaching one how to think, but when you allow it to teach you what to think, you're doing it wrong. If your belief actually stems from philosophy, then you've run too far with it. More importantly, though, and as stated in my previous post, if you are employing philosophy as justification for a belief, then you're not just doing philosophy wrong, you're not doing philosophy at all, you're doing theology, or where the belief in question does not involve a deity, apologetics (which is all theology really is anyway).

but none are particularly more special

Certainly not, although many believers really do think they're special, which is the core of the belief in a lot of cases.

or interesting

I couldn't disagree more. I personally think that belief is incredibly interesting. Unbelief is not, becaus it's merely the default position with regard to any given truth claim. Belief, though, that is interesting. What is particularly interesting is how people cling to such a useless construct as belief (and I mean any belief, not just those that involve a deity). Where we have hard evidence from reality, belief is superfluous. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, belief is ridiculous. Either way, it is entirely without utility, and it really does fascinate me that people think it has value.

or right than the next.

'Right' is the wrong term. Non-belief in the face of absolutely no evidence whatsoever is certainly more correct, from the perspective of the aforementioned school of thought that is the only one that has ever been demonstrated to actually work. This is precisely why it isn't interesting, and why belief is more interesting.

And thanks

And you're welcome.