It has become clear to me that any thinking atheist can lay claim to the virtue that I will name, self-reliant mind. So far I've identified five areas where this virtue manifests.
Knowledge: The atheist takes nothing as knowledge but what the atheist or its designated mortal surrogates can falsify by replicating the alleged process of discovery and personally verifying the previously announced observations. No recourse to unquestionable authority is tolerated.
Purpose: The atheist acknowledges no purposes accruing from the outside or some mysterious inside. No will but the self's will has relevance for organizing a life, and no will but the aggregate will of a collection of selves has relevance for organizing their collective enterprise.
Hope: The atheist refuses to find hope for betterment in anything but the competence and perseverance of self and its designated mortal surrogates. No prayer and no ritual sacrifice is deemed to have efficacy nor cosmic plan to have ascendancy.
Justice: The atheist acknowledges that there will be no justice except as the self or its mortal surrogates bring about by stern endeavor. No karma or hell will punish, nor karma or heaven reward, nor flood or plague assail the earth for moral reasons.
Policy: The atheist takes no policy as inherently wise except as the self or an aggregate of selves ratify by logic and emotion applied to their affairs as they perceive them. No proverbs attributed to some supernatural source will usurp the policy-making authority of selves.
I offer the term self-reliant mind, and the virtue it denotes, described in summary above, as that which differentiates and brings honor to the atheist.
You are so precise with words you could almost be a lawyer, now once my lawyer translates it for me, I may consider offering my response.
Just kidding,
I like what you have done. I am trying to define Atheism as more than simply "lack of belief in god". I currently think this is possible but it takes some effort.
But can a person with a self-reliant mind not necessarily be an atheist?
One of the beauties of language is its modularity. I see nothing useful in adding baggage to a word like atheism, it simply adds confusion and unnecessary complexity. Words should have the simplest possible meaning to produce relevance and clarity. A person could call themselves a rational secular humanist, they may also be an atheist, but not necessarily.
The simpler (more accurate) a word's meaning the more effective and efficient it is at conveying information during communication.
So atheist should mean nothing more than "A person who does not consider a god or gods to exist."
Note I don't use the word 'believe' but 'consider' as the latter implies a thoughtful evaluation rather than an emotional assertion.
How one comes to hold an atheistic world view is down to the individual.
Quote from: Tank on January 03, 2012, 10:03:56 AM
But can a person with a self-reliant mind not necessarily be an atheist?
A classic Deist, who figures the universe had to have been created but sees no evidence for continued involvement on the part of the Creator, could cultivate self-reliant mind. Many of us have long acknowledged the natural compatibility of atheists and classic Deists.
A classic Deist could be an apatheist and in fact, if I were the first, I would be the second, since an uninvolved God is irrelevant. Atheists, too, can be apatheists. Any apatheist can cultivate self-reliant mind.
But as soon as I allow myself to think God is engaged in daily reality, I start sliding down the slippery slope toward a mindset where God provides truth, purpose, hope, justice, and policy. There are only two options: creatures provide these things for themselves or the Creator provides them. Anyone who looks to the Creator to provide these things has failed to cultivate self-reliant mind.
I read a Catholic's post once where they said that they give back the gift of free will.
I was watching a Dawkins interview, he was saying he takes some things on faith, or something approaching it.
Not a blind faith, other scientists do things he doesn't understand but he places some trust in their findings.
I have to take more things on faith than dear Richard, people go places I can't, all I'm going to ever get is reports of what they found.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 04, 2012, 01:32:55 AM
I was watching a Dawkins interview, he was saying he takes some things on faith, or something approaching it.
Not a blind faith, other scientists do things he doesn't understand but he places some trust in their findings.
I have to take more things on faith than dear Richard, people go places I can't, all I'm going to ever get is reports of what they found.
So using a atlas is an act of faith! Well I never!
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 04, 2012, 01:32:55 AM
I was watching a Dawkins interview, he was saying he takes some things on faith, or something approaching it.
Not a blind faith, other scientists do things he doesn't understand but he places some trust in their findings.
Trusting valid authorities is not an act of faith ??? nor is it a fallacy.
QuoteI have to take more things on faith than dear Richard, people go places I can't, all I'm going to ever get is reports of what they found.
You're right. Every now and then I'm sceptical that China exists. ;) I've never been there.
Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on January 03, 2012, 11:23:31 AM
But as soon as I allow myself to think God is engaged in daily reality, I start sliding down the slippery slope toward a mindset where God provides truth, purpose, hope, justice, and policy. There are only two options: creatures provide these things for themselves or the Creator provides them. Anyone who looks to the Creator to provide these things has failed to cultivate self-reliant mind.
If one is married and allows one's spouse to be actively involved in one's decision-making process, does that person also start sliding down the slope toward a non-self-reliant mind?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 06, 2012, 01:14:36 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 04, 2012, 01:32:55 AM
I was watching a Dawkins interview, he was saying he takes some things on faith, or something approaching it.
Not a blind faith, other scientists do things he doesn't understand but he places some trust in their findings.
Trusting valid authorities is not an act of faith ??? nor is it a fallacy.
I don't think it's faith as such, you may accept information and not rigorously attempt to verify it. If the truth of something isn't going to influence your decisions the effort of verifying it could be seen as a waste of energy. Or it could be beyond your ability. The OP seemed to demand a level of rigour I don't always practice. I suppose I accept things on a provisional basis, assign some probability as to their truth and make decisions based on that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 06, 2012, 01:14:36 AM
You're right. Every now and then I'm sceptical that China exists. ;) I've never been there.
If it wasn't obvious I was being metaphorical, I can't follow an astrophysicist into the calculations required to theorise about the big bang.
QuoteI offer the term self-reliant mind, and the virtue it denotes, described in summary above, as that which differentiates and brings honor to the atheist.
The only problem I see is that "self-reliance" means:
independent,
autonomous,
self-contained,
self-governing,
self-sufficient,
self-supporting,
self-sustaining,
unaided,
unallied,
autarchic,
individualistic,
nonaligned,
nonpartisan,
on one's own,
self-contained,
self-determining,
self-ruling,
self-sufficient,
self-supporting,
separate,
sovereign.
Aggregate means forming a collection from separate parts.
Therefore, terms such as "designated mortal surrogates", "the aggregate" and "aggregate of selves" defeats the term "self-reliant" when it comes to any form of decision making or an act consisting of (for example) as an aggregate. So sure, a collection of self-reliant atheists can all stand around and agree or disagree or stand as undecided on something, but what use is it?
Quote from: Tank on January 03, 2012, 10:03:56 AM
But can a person with a self-reliant mind not necessarily be an atheist?
many different types of satanists.
Quote from: Tank on January 03, 2012, 10:03:56 AM
But can a person with a self-reliant mind not necessarily be an atheist?
yes they can
the proposal : self reliant mind = atheist
is a romantic one but cannot hold water
most importantly there are atheists that are not with self-reliant mind
Quote from: Tank on January 03, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
One of the beauties of language is its modularity. I see nothing useful in adding baggage to a word like atheism, it simply adds confusion and unnecessary complexity. Words should have the simplest possible meaning to produce relevance and clarity. A person could call themselves a rational secular humanist, they may also be an atheist, but not necessarily.
The simpler (more accurate) a word's meaning the more effective and efficient it is at conveying information during communication.
So atheist should mean nothing more than "A person who does not consider a god or gods to exist."
Note I don't use the word 'believe' but 'consider' as the latter implies a thoughtful evaluation rather than an emotional assertion.
How one comes to hold an atheistic world view is down to the individual.
This with due respect is wholly tendentious. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or Gods. Whether this is a considered view or not is irrelevant to the definition. There are plenty of atheists who have rejected the idea of gods for emotional or on wholly ill-considered grounds. There equally theists who have carefully considered their position.
Quote from: En_Route on February 10, 2012, 10:18:52 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 03, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
One of the beauties of language is its modularity. I see nothing useful in adding baggage to a word like atheism, it simply adds confusion and unnecessary complexity. Words should have the simplest possible meaning to produce relevance and clarity. A person could call themselves a rational secular humanist, they may also be an atheist, but not necessarily.
The simpler (more accurate) a word's meaning the more effective and efficient it is at conveying information during communication.
So atheist should mean nothing more than "A person who does not consider a god or gods to exist."
Note I don't use the word 'believe' but 'consider' as the latter implies a thoughtful evaluation rather than an emotional assertion.
How one comes to hold an atheistic world view is down to the individual.
This with due respect is wholly tendentious. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or Gods. Whether this is a considered view or not is irrelevant to the definition. There are plenty of atheists who have rejected the idea of gods for emotional or on wholly ill-considered grounds. There equally theists who have carefully considered their position.
I see your point. But I did say 'should'. I don't think a person who has not made a considered choice about view has the intellectual intergrity to claim a particular viewpoint. I'm sure there are atheist who haven't made a 'considered' choice and the same can be said for theists.
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 04:12:20 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 10, 2012, 10:18:52 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 03, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
One of the beauties of language is its modularity. I see nothing useful in adding baggage to a word like atheism, it simply adds confusion and unnecessary complexity. Words should have the simplest possible meaning to produce relevance and clarity. A person could call themselves a rational secular humanist, they may also be an atheist, but not necessarily.
The simpler (more accurate) a word's meaning the more effective and efficient it is at conveying information during communication.
So atheist should mean nothing more than "A person who does not consider a god or gods to exist."
Note I don't use the word 'believe' but 'consider' as the latter implies a thoughtful evaluation rather than an emotional assertion.
How one comes to hold an atheistic world view is down to the individual.
This with due respect is wholly tendentious. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or Gods. Whether this is a considered view or not is irrelevant to the definition. There are plenty of atheists who have rejected the idea of gods for emotional or on wholly ill-considered grounds. There equally theists who have carefully considered their position.
I see your point. But I did say 'should'. I don't think a person who has not made a considered choice about view has the intellectual intergrity to claim a particular viewpoint. I'm sure there are atheist who haven't made a 'considered' choice and the same can be said for theists.
Fair point re "should". I would have thought that defining an atheist as someone who does not believe in gods as a result of a process of thoughtful evaluation both more complex and considerably more subjective than simply as one who does not believe in gods. It would also leaves us short of a word to cover an atheist who hasn't arrived at his/her conclusions with sufficient judiciousness in to qualify under your definition.We could end up with a bitterly contested hieararchy of atheism.
Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 05:40:13 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 04:12:20 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 10, 2012, 10:18:52 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 03, 2012, 10:15:20 AM
One of the beauties of language is its modularity. I see nothing useful in adding baggage to a word like atheism, it simply adds confusion and unnecessary complexity. Words should have the simplest possible meaning to produce relevance and clarity. A person could call themselves a rational secular humanist, they may also be an atheist, but not necessarily.
The simpler (more accurate) a word's meaning the more effective and efficient it is at conveying information during communication.
So atheist should mean nothing more than "A person who does not consider a god or gods to exist."
Note I don't use the word 'believe' but 'consider' as the latter implies a thoughtful evaluation rather than an emotional assertion.
How one comes to hold an atheistic world view is down to the individual.
This with due respect is wholly tendentious. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or Gods. Whether this is a considered view or not is irrelevant to the definition. There are plenty of atheists who have rejected the idea of gods for emotional or on wholly ill-considered grounds. There equally theists who have carefully considered their position.
I see your point. But I did say 'should'. I don't think a person who has not made a considered choice about view has the intellectual intergrity to claim a particular viewpoint. I'm sure there are atheist who haven't made a 'considered' choice and the same can be said for theists.
Fair point re "should". I would have thought that defining an atheist as someone who does not believe in gods as a result of a process of thoughtful evaluation both more complex and considerably more subjective than simply as one who does not believe in gods. It would also leaves us short of a word to cover an atheist who hasn't arrived at his/her conclusions with sufficient judiciousness in to qualify under your definition.We could end up with a bitterly contested hieararchy of atheism.
I suppose I am being more than a little pedantic with 'consider'. However if a person said 'I'm an atheist' and couldn't explain why I would be quite unimpressed by their assertion. Part of this issue would be that the person would have to have chosen put a label on themselves 'atheist' but not taken the trouble to understand why.
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 06:17:44 PM
I suppose I am being more than a little pedantic with 'consider'. However if a person said 'I'm an atheist' and couldn't explain why I would be quite unimpressed by their assertion. Part of this issue would be that the person would have to have chosen put a label on themselves 'atheist' but not taken the trouble to understand why.
I like the way you used the word 'consider', as it implies some forethought before labeling one's self an atheist. I know plenty of people who call themselves atheists because they think "I don't care about that God stuff" and that's all the thought they put into it. One of my best friends from childhood is like this. We argue about it from time to time. I ask her if she's put any serious thought into her non-belief, and her answer is "hell no, I don't care about that God stuff, I just don't want to think about it, I'm happy the way I am." Essentially, she sees herself as an atheist the way some people see themselves as Christian -- their parents were that way, so while it really means nothing personally to them, they use the label because they don't want to bother using another.
I'm not saying atheism has to be some deep, meaningful experience you think about obsessively. It's just that you ought to know which position you hold, and why. There ought to be reasons for your position.
I know what you mean. Maybe though we should just take atheism as a default position and only put the onus on people who want to complicate matters by bringing gods into the equation to have actively thought about the matter.
Quote from: Amicale on February 11, 2012, 06:26:56 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 06:17:44 PM
I suppose I am being more than a little pedantic with 'consider'. However if a person said 'I'm an atheist' and couldn't explain why I would be quite unimpressed by their assertion. Part of this issue would be that the person would have to have chosen put a label on themselves 'atheist' but not taken the trouble to understand why.
I like the way you used the word 'consider', as it implies some forethought before labeling one's self an atheist. I know plenty of people who call themselves atheists because they think "I don't care about that God stuff" and that's all the thought they put into it. One of my best friends from childhood is like this. We argue about it from time to time. I ask her if she's put any serious thought into her non-belief, and her answer is "hell no, I don't care about that God stuff, I just don't want to think about it, I'm happy the way I am." Essentially, she sees herself as an atheist the way some people see themselves as Christian -- their parents were that way, so while it really means nothing personally to them, they use the label because they don't want to bother using another.
I'm not saying atheism has to be some deep, meaningful experience you think about obsessively. It's just that you ought to know which position you hold, and why. There ought to be reasons for your position.
Agreed.
Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 06:27:53 PM
I know what you mean. Maybe though we should just take atheism as a default position and only put the onus on people who want to complicate matters by bringing gods into the equation to have actively thought about the matter.
I would agree that atheism is the default position. But one shouldn't have to define a default position asthe negative of some other value should one?
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 06:58:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 06:27:53 PM
I know what you mean. Maybe though we should just take atheism as a default position and only put the onus on people who want to complicate matters by bringing gods into the equation to have actively thought about the matter.
I would agree that atheism is the default position. But one shouldn't have to define a default position asthe negative of some other value should one?
I think of it as an historical aberration, since theism of one kind or another commanded almost universal belief in the earliest days of mankind.
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 06:58:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 06:27:53 PM
I know what you mean. Maybe though we should just take atheism as a default position and only put the onus on people who want to complicate matters by bringing gods into the equation to have actively thought about the matter.
I would agree that atheism is the default position. But one shouldn't have to define a default position asthe negative of some other value should one?
Actually, Tank, I'm not so sure atheism is the default position. While it's true a child isn't born with belief in anything, they also haven't chosen any other sort of position, either. If calling oneself an atheist ought to be a carefully considered position, then I'm not sure how it's the default one, either. Hmm.
Quote from: Amicale on February 11, 2012, 08:29:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 06:58:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 06:27:53 PM
I know what you mean. Maybe though we should just take atheism as a default position and only put the onus on people who want to complicate matters by bringing gods into the equation to have actively thought about the matter.
I would agree that atheism is the default position. But one shouldn't have to define a default position asthe negative of some other value should one?
Actually, Tank, I'm not so sure atheism is the default position. While it's true a child isn't born with belief in anything, they also haven't chosen any other sort of position, either. If calling oneself an atheist ought to be a carefully considered position, then I'm not sure how it's the default one, either. Hmm.
Good point, good point. Children are definitly born belief free. But I have always considered theism as a corruption of this basic innocence. So that's what I was getting at.
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 08:39:12 PM
Quote from: Amicale on February 11, 2012, 08:29:54 PM
Quote from: Tank on February 11, 2012, 06:58:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on February 11, 2012, 06:27:53 PM
I know what you mean. Maybe though we should just take atheism as a default position and only put the onus on people who want to complicate matters by bringing gods into the equation to have actively thought about the matter.
I would agree that atheism is the default position. But one shouldn't have to define a default position asthe negative of some other value should one?
Actually, Tank, I'm not so sure atheism is the default position. While it's true a child isn't born with belief in anything, they also haven't chosen any other sort of position, either. If calling oneself an atheist ought to be a carefully considered position, then I'm not sure how it's the default one, either. Hmm.
Good point, good point. Children are definitly born belief free. But I have always considered theism as a corruption of this basic innocence. So that's what I was getting at.
Yup, fully agree. Children are born innocent, free of any of our whacky ideas. :D As they grow, they just have to pick the one that's the least whacky! ;)