Since atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity, I don't see how it could be a core principle to my philosophy. I don't base my view of the human condition anymore on the lack of a god than I base it on the lack of a Santa Claus or a unicorn.

I think it's only an important aspect of any positions I hold insofar as it differentiates them from theist positions. For example, my position on abortion runs counter to the prevailing Christian view thereof, and so therefore the atheistic aspect of it becomes more pronounced.

Atheism is a core principle of my philosophy in the sense that I think it is most important to try to overcome the detrimental effects on both humankind and the natural world of 2000 years of anthropocentric thinking.

I am not an atheist in the sense that I object to people believing in God, or whatever they find they need to believe in to make their lives seem livable to them, but I think any such beliefs should be acknowledged as feelings and it should be understood that they can never justify any positive account of God.

I like Spinoza's equation of God with Nature, and his rejection of the idea that human beings (or anything else) could be important to God. This idea that Spinoza rejects, this self-serving anthropomorphic projection is perhaps the single most pernicious idea ever invented by humans.

I’d like to hear how theism could be a trivial part of a person’s philosophy.

Atheist and it's of no consequence for my philosophical views.

Normally, I almost never think about religious issues. I don't take them seriously. I don't think they're worth consideration. Unfortunately, message boards like this are a refuge for folks who consider themselves religious apologists and who somehow think that cheeky, smarmy proselytizing is likely to have a positive effect.

I've been an atheist most of my adult life and in the real world (that is, not on internet forums) it didn't, and doesn't, influence my decisions greatly. I started learning formal logic later on in life and came to take an interest in philosophy due to this, so I'm a newbie when it comes to philosophy. I've gone with the last option.

This old atheism of mine is merely a consequence of (my) philosophizing.

If you realise that philosophical/scientific materialism is fallacious, then what are the alternatives?

In my view, philosophical/scientific materialism developed directly out of Christian philosophical principles. Through Cartesian dualism, the divide between mind and matter was introduced, and then in the course of the next few centuries, the concept of ‘res cogitans’ became increasingly untenable, leading to an outlook in which only matter is real. That was why physics then became paradigmatic for all the sciences, and it was felt that everything in the Universe was in principle reducible to physics.

Not many people will conscientiously argue for physicalism as it’s like a presumption - namely, the presumption of what must be case post ‘death of God’. But I’m sure that a majority or sizeable minority believe that the Universe is ultimately understandable in terms of what Bertrand Russell called ‘the accidental collocation of atoms’.

Now, as I don’t accept, then what are the alternatives? What is ‘the nature of reality’ if you don’t accept the mainstream scientific-secular account? It may not be ‘theism’ per se, but if my experience, if it’s *not* materialism, then it’s going to sound awfully like it.

(BTW, didn’t make a choice as my philosophy is not included in them.)

If you realise that philosophical/scientific materialism is fallacious, then what are the alternatives? — Wayfarer

Please explain in what way, or sense, "philosophical/scientific materialism is fallacious".

In my view, philosophical/scientific materialism developed directly out of Christian philosophical principles. — Wayfarer

Nah, it's already there in the ancient world, for one notable example, Democritus.

You can read about its history here.

I've been waiting quite some time now for that explanation. :grin:

Please explain in what way, or sense, "philosophical/scientific materialism is fallacious". — 180 Proof

It would take a book, although one thing I could say is that it provides no account of meaning. As one theistic philosopher puts it:

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes. — Some Theist

This also came up in many discussions with Apokrisis - the basis of semiotics is that intentionality and signs (in Peirce’s sense) can’t be derived from, and aren’t reducible to, physical laws.

Furthermore I anticipate that your response won’t reference anything physical at all. The argument will always be about what things mean.

Curious that no theists shave voted.

I'm thinking that a theist who thinks their theism incidental will be a rare thing.

Edit: Yep.

That's why we identify meaning with the meaning of material things(including minds-- not brains-- but the existing mental entity caused in the world).

The material world means, it is necessary. Existence is responsible.

No nihilism and its extra worldly imaginings required to account for meaning. Meaning is staring at you, immanent to every material presence.

Just a minute, I want to run that past my dog.

.....

I don’t think he gets it.

Were you expecting your dog to speak English and so understand your words?

Speech isn't important here. The point is that the (material world) needs no God to speak it into meaning. Meaning is necessary to it, imbued within the material presence itself. No-one has to speak meaning for it to be. Gods included.

I would have thought atheists basing their philosophy on their atheism would be equally rare.
I wonder how that would work...basing something off of something you do not believe in.

Arguably, Sartre.

I dont understand that comment. Satre?

Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not in the least that of plunging men into despair. And if by despair one means as the Christians do – any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the existentialists is something different. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.

My italics. But as he goes on to say, it's not so much that god does not exist, as that he is irrelevant to the human condition.

There's something in that for all of us.

An atheist could be not merely a-theistic, but anti-theistic.

:up: Or the attitude could be like that expressed by Sartre.

I don't understand how anyone that philosophizes (honestly) can arrive at theism, lmao. Frankly, theists seem stuck in a frame of mind I just lack the capacity to grasp, mostly that of ego and extreme fear. I do NOT fear being an idiot. I am HUNGRY all of the time, and theism leaves me famished.

Theism denotes a lot of metaphysical certainty and absolutes etc., so of course no theists would vote and feel comfortable with it. Instead, it is best viewed as something distinct from philosophy ... some "personal" thing. Theism is the most restricting and uninteresting thing I've ever encountered. It is important only on the grounds that it is impossible to ignore as we persist as humans.

Atheism is just something I 'fell into' at first by being unmoved (faithfully .. and emotionally) by theism, it does not wow my world in the slightest, and I need to be wowed, not rocked to sleep like a baby..... I then felt needed more unf., when it came to self-reflection and why I felt that way and should be able to explain it, (positive atheism..), unless I am no different than a young theist being led by religious parents.

When you come to acceptance of 'atheism' which just means being tolerant of the fact that X-god does not exist, NOT submitting to it, then the transition into the acceptance of other affairs becomes more smooth (e.g. dismissal of all supernatural etc. etc.). Many philosophies MAKE no sense once you've transitioned, it is only a problem when you submit (... as a core) - NOT learn to accept (consequence of..).

So yeah, atheism JUST HAPPENS... for people like me, and for others atheism comes from more vigilant studies. For me, anyway, it is NOT the core of my 'life philosophy' just something that comes with the package.

It would take a book, although one thing I could say is that it provides no account of meaning. — Wayfarer

At best this would mean that a materialist account is incomplete, not that is is fallacious. Apart from chemistry; it is not possible to give an account of the sciences in terms of physics; but form this it does not follow that physics is fallacious.

If you accept that semiosis is an emergent property of complex physical systems, it is not such an intellectual leap to accept that emergent properties cannot always be reductively understood in terms of the constitutive physical matrix from which they have purportedly emerged.

Strictly speaking atheism doesn’t imply anything about anything besides God, so you can reject materialism and believe in something supernatural or spiritual but if that thing doesn’t count as God to you then you’re still an atheist. I’m more curious if you start off believing there’s nothing that counts as God and building a worldview from there or vice versa.

My italics. But as he goes on to say, it's not so much that god does not exist, as that he is irrelevant to the human condition.

There's something in that for all of us. — Banno

Ah I see. Im not sure I agree. If god did exist then how could it be irrelevant to the human condition? Its kind of written into the character. Maybe im being too literal.

An atheist could be not merely a-theistic, but anti-theistic. — Janus

Right, such a person would be an atheist and an anti-theist but one could also just be one or the other.

If god did exist then how could it be irrelevant to the human condition? — DingoJones

The core of the human condition, at least for Sartre, is the choice - what next?

God is irrelevant here because, even if one chooses to follow god, the choice is one's own.

I voted atheism and 'core', but for perhaps different reasons than some. In a nutshell I understand theism as a failure of explanation: all (philosophical) theism as I understand it is of the 'God of the gaps' variety - in lieu of providing an immanent, naturalistic account of things, God or Gods are invoked as (non-)explanations. God indicates a failure of thought, and a certain inability of intellect.

So my atheism is 'core', but not in a way the demands a disproof of 'God' at evey turn (the existence or not of God is an irrelavent question, as I see it - that God does not exist, or better, is entirely senseless, is a starting point, not an end-point), but in a way that demands that thought simply be consistent and thorough. Only atheism does full justice to thought itself. God demeans thought, and with it, humanity.

At first I thought that what you said works one way but not the other, that is I thought you could not be an anti-theist unless you are also an atheist, but on rethinking it I guess you could believe there is a God and yet think the best approach for a flourishing human life would be to resist his advances.

Ya thats what I had in mind. You could believe in god but hate him, or resent him, or reject his dictatorship.