Sure. The point is only that atheism has a fairly narrow scope (a point on which I expect we largely agree), and doesn't make (or imply) any positive truth-claims about e.g. the origin of the universe, the nature of reality, whether moral judgments are cognitive or propositional, or any other topic in philosophy or the sciences... only a very specific negative claim: i.e. the denial of theism.

So atheism doesn't dictate any particular position on e.g. the origin of the universe, it only excludes the proposition that theism has anything to do with it (and similarly with any other topic or proposition).

:up:

Yep. I wish this was better understood by theists and sci-fi mystics who seem to think atheism is some kind of immutable worldview.

I've repeated this point for decades and still have no idea why folks don't get it (except, I suspect, many of them would rather take issue with disingenous caricatures of atheism).

:up:

Well and who also seem to think that atheism is synonymous with or entails things like materialism, moral nihilism/anti-realism, and so on. It does not. Obviously there are many atheists who are also materialists or moral nihilists/anti-realists/etc, but this is not a logical consequence of atheism: atheism is logically independent of most positive philosophical positions, and doesn't commit one to any particular position or view on most topics.

I think this misconception/misrepresentation has to be deliberate in at least many cases, because it does seem to persist no matter how many times people point out and explain this particular error.

I think the 'disingenuous caricatures of atheism' is as useful to the polemical mystifiers as the tediously proffered notion that atheism inevitably leads to Hitler and or Godless Communism

:up:

We know from ourselves that our universe is a consciousness-bearing universe. — ucarr

I don't dispute this, but others will, so I think that proving this should be your starting point.

Hey, I'm all for godless communism, so they're right about that part I guess :grin:

We know from ourselves that our universe is a consciousness-bearing universe. — ucarr

I took this as "I am conscious, and I came into being in the Universe, so therefore the Universe is capable of giving rise to something conscious." Which, as far as I know, can't really be proven, only experienced with an n=1.

Unless that's not quite what you meant, @ucarr?

"I am conscious, and I came into being in the Universe, so therefore the Universe is capable of giving rise to something conscious." Which, as far as I know, can't really be proven, only experienced with an n=1. — tomatohorse

That's actually a proof. It is not proven in an a priori way, but in an a posteriori or empirical way, but it's still a proof.

@god must be atheist True.

Per @RogueAI’s comment this seems fairly incontrovertible to me… are there really folks here who would disagree? If so I’d be curious as to their reasoning.

There is an issue with this claim that can be labeled the point-of-contact Venn diagram problem — ucarr

Point-of-contact precludes parallelism and thus all relationships assume positive values of sameness between inter-related things. — ucarr

This sort of reminds me of the trinity.



It's a Venn diagram in disguise. Due to the "is not" - exclusion zones and "is" - the overlap

Note - I abbreviate consciousness as "cons." -- ucarr

I do not understand atheism as an "ideology" or as derived from "axioms". One who claims, as I do, that theism is demonstrably not true and, therefore, disbelieves in every theistic deity, is an atheist. — 180 Proof

... atheism doesn't dictate any particular position on how (or whether) the universe began... only that whatever it is, God had nothing to do with it. — busycuttingcrap

We know from ourselves that our universe is a consciousness-bearing universe.
— ucarr

I don't dispute this, but others will, so I think that proving this should be your starting point. — RogueAI

↪RogueAI
We know from ourselves that our universe is a consciousness-bearing universe.
— ucarr
I took this as "I am conscious, and I came into being in the Universe, so therefore the Universe is capable of giving rise to something conscious." Which, as far as I know, can't really be proven, only experienced with an n=1. — tomatohorse

"I am conscious, and I came into being in the Universe, so therefore the Universe is capable of giving rise to something conscious." Which, as far as I know, can't really be proven, only experienced with an n=1.
— tomatohorse

That's actually a proof. It is not proven in an a priori way, but in an a posteriori or empirical way, but it's still a proof. — god must be atheist

If human cons can only be verified up to the level of practical experience of the everyday world a posteriori, given its presence in nature, doesn’t that allow, in the absence of preclusion, the possibility it’s source might be super-ordinate WRT nature? I'm not talking about a realm of mysterious power over humanity from on high. By super-ordinate I mean "a thing that represents a superior order or category within a system of classification."

If so, then that location might be supernatural or extra-natural, etc, right? On the other hand, if cons, like matter, takes the default position of having always existed, being neither created nor destroyed, then it’s axiomatic that nature is cons-bearing, right? If that’s so, then science begins with cons as a self-evident truth. From here it follows that axiomatically cons humans cannot, on a logical basis, be uncoupled from a cons sourced outside of nature. Thus a supernaturally-sourced cons cannot be logically excluded.

In spite of my speculations above, I’m in favor of propositional logic elaborating a continuity of symbolically representable expressions following strict rules of inference to the effect of proving nature is cons-bearing. A cons-bearing universe allows human to be Venn-diagramed with a cosmic cons, and that’s evidence of a cosmic dialogue, and that’s more interesting than the cosmic soliloquy of atheism, what with its trace of Hamlet’s suicidal despair (Camus).

Atheism excludes God as creator of the material universe. Does that not make atheism a theory of what the origin of the universe is not? If so, atheism is not independent of metaphysics. It's metaphysical claim says, “God did not create the material universe.”

Even if non-life can be scientifically transformed into life, science cannot explain scientifically the ground of physicality. Thus atheism as to the why and how of existence is no less an article of faith than is theism. Atheism is therefore a type of epistemology.

Atheism is not an ideology? I suspect a statistically significant number (certainly not all) of atheists practice their atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism. They don't want to live under the rule of a dictatorial, humanoid deity whose self-serving morals are brutally mediated by an elite priestly class of
clerics.

I'm trying to approach the premise of a super-ordinate theism from within the field of science.

My main idea herein is drawing a parallel with Riemann's zeta function.

Prime numbers are the axioms of number theory. The Riemann Hypothesis examines this. The zeta function yields primes on a critical line extending along the complex number line. This is where the primes are organized. So far, the critical line appears to be of infinite extent. How does one categorize the entire set mathematically?

I say in parallel axioms are the primes of scientific theory. Within scientific theory, they are the irreducible singularities. Do they too have a mathematical function that produces a critical set of axioms along the complex number plane?

Deus = the axiom plane. As the ground and source of existence, the axiom plane is a transcending, non-local dimensionalizer of actuated possibility.

Deus is uncontainable, even as an abstract concept. That it is super-ordinate to anything is a fiction of language.

Deus is prior to the singularity of the Big Bang.

Deus is evidence numericality is an essential attribute of the material creation. Numbers are discovered, not invented.

I suspect a statistically significant number (certainly not all) of atheists practice their atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism. — ucarr

I'm curious what this means, exactly; can you say more?

Atheism excludes God as creator of the material universe. — ucarr

Only a "theistic" origin of the universe is "excluded". Atheism does not reject other possibilities (e.g. pandeism, acosmism, eternal inflation, etc).

Does that not make atheism a theory of what the origin of the universe is not?

No.

[Atheism]'s a metaphysical claim says, “God did not create the material universe.”

One more time for the slow ones way in the back: atheism is disbelief in theistic deities (& stories) If the material universe was "created", then an atheist only states "I disbelieve stories of 'the universe created by a theistic deity'". This is an epistemological commitment and not a "metaphysical claim" (whatever that means).

[ ... ] Thus atheism as to the why and how of existence is no less an article of faith than is theism.

Nonsense. That's like saying 'celibacy is no less a sex position than sodomy'. :roll: :confused: :sweat:

Yes, and I think it's equally true that much is assumed of the theistic view, in that it somehow requires adherence to a particular religious doctrine.

The pure argument here, so to speak, between the atheist and the theist is a simple statement the one has faith in the belief in God and the other denies God's existence. That is not, or course how such arguments typically occur. They typically present as one ridiculing Creationism and the other ridiculing evolution or something similar.

While it's logically possible one may be an atheist and believe the world followed a 6 day course to come into being (so long as it's not attributable to God) and it's logically possible to be a theist and believe all morals are subjective human creations (so long as God still exists) such positions rarely correlate.

What this means is that the diversity of theistic and atheistic positions that flow from the described respective foundational requirements can be vast, and it is for that reason one side or the other is constantly screaming strawman at the other because it was assumed incorrectly by one or the other that they held a typically correlated view.

I suspect a statistically significant number (certainly not all) of atheists practice their atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism.
— ucarr

I'm curious what this means, exactly; can you say more? — busycuttingcrap

Statistically significant means a set with a volume of members too large to be unimportant and not worth considering as a factor in collection of numerical data; a group too large to be considered insignificant.

Martin Luther and his followers revolted against the imperious control of the Catholic Church. Those who reject big organized religion in favor of a personal walk with God bolstered by bible readings are Protestants.

A secular protestant is a person who rejects God and the imperious control of organized religion.

I wasn't asking for definitions of statistical significance or Protestantism, I was asking you what exactly "practicing atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism" involves or consists of. What does this look like, in practice?

:up: Agreed. And you're certainly right that this cuts both ways, and it is equally obnoxious and counter-productive no matter who is doing it. Frustrating how so many people are unwilling to allow the other person to stake out their own position, in their own terms, without making assumptions about what they must think or believe on other topics in virtue of their being an atheist or theist.

Only a "theistic" origin of the universe is "excluded". — 180 Proof

In my Apple Dictionary I see that theism derives from THEÓS or THEOI meaning "god" or "gods." Both theism and deism include God.

Christian Theism believes in an active God who relates with humans as a mentor. Deism believes in a passive God who leaves humans to their own devices.

In either case, God is acknowledged as the creator of the universe. Unless the God of deism is a physical god who created a physical universe, thus rendering deism indistinguishable from materialism, belief in a spirit God as creator is a metaphysical belief. This separates deism from atheism.

Atheism is the negation of acknowledgement of a spirit God as creator. A negation does not negate itself.

If I negate acknowledgement of light as the fastest moving material object in the physical universe, I posit a theory about what is not in the realm of physicalism. It is a physicalist theory.

In parallel, if I negate acknowledgement of a spirit God as creator in the metaphysical realm, I posit a theory about what is not in the realm of the metaphysical. It is a metaphysical theory.

Even if I negate metaphysics entirely, I posit a theory of metaphysics > non-existent.

Negation no less than affirmation attaches itself to the realm about which it posits a theory.

...an atheist only states "I disbelieve stories of 'the universe created by a theistic deity'". This is an epistemological commitment and not a "metaphysical claim" (whatever that means). — 180 Proof

If you turn away from a claim about reality because you are personally repelled by it, but make no commitment about the truth or falsity of the claim, that is doubt. Disbelief cannot be based upon doubt. Disbelief is properly based upon commitment to belief in negation. Committed negation of a transcendent God is a metaphysical claim. If you know there is no spirit realm housing a transcendent creator God, then you're trading in metaphysical coinage and that's a metaphysical claim.

I wasn't asking for definitions of statistical significance or Protestantism, I was asking you what exactly "practicing atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism" involves or consists of. What does this look like, in practice? — busycuttingcrap

A secular protestant, lying on his deathbed, in defiance of his own emotional past as a boy raised Catholic, exhorts his parents, wife and children, to their great anguish, not to hold any type of religious services at his funeral.

A secular protestant breaks off his engagement to a beloved fiance because she and her parents insist upon a church wedding.

A secular protestant eschews observance of Christmas.

I was asking you what exactly "practicing atheism as a kind of secular Protestantism" involves or consists of. What does this look like, in practice? — busycuttingcrap

There are a number of Christian apologists who make a similar point - they argue that the atheist's value system is essentially one of Christianity (Protestantism generally gets left out of this argument). Basically they are unable to imagine any notion of secular morality and values and insist that any moral system in atheism must be derived from a Christian morality. Why would you value other humans if there is no transcendent meaning? That old thing. A 'true' atheist to them would be a nihilist who would commit mass murder, rape and theft before breakfast each morning.

A secular protestant... — ucarr

It's not always a vacuous culture war out there.

Many atheists I know have had church weddings, don't care what their funeral ends up being and find Christmas engaging, have religious friends and enjoy visiting churches. Some atheists are not engaged in any debate about gods and do not consider themselves in opposition to religion, they are just not concerned with religion and find any idea of god/s irrelevant to their experience of life.

I suppose you need to reformulate what I've written because it's easier for you to knock down strawmen rather than substantively engage my stated positions. :yawn:

:100:

What's 4D logic? Just curious... — Shawn

Temporal logic?

[ ... ] Thus atheism as to the why and how of existence is no less an article of faith than is theism.
Nonsense. That's like saying 'celibacy is no less a sex position than sodomy'. :roll: — 180 Proof

:rofl:

Atheism is, I would have to agree, (cosmic) solipsism. A question that might be of interest to you: What would be the mental & physical environment such that no one in that environment would ever entertain the idea of (a) god(s)? Are there existing communities, perhaps uncontacted Amazonian tribes, that have never thought of god(s)? I suppose the number is nought but then that means theism has, dare I say it?, (proto-)rational roots i.e. it's reasonable, even if only in the most basic sense of reasonable.

Atheism is, I would have to agree, (cosmic) solipsism. — Agent Smith

Wtf :roll:

Wtf — 180 Proof

Oh come on!

Many atheists I know have had church weddings, — Tom Storm

I consider myself theistic, but was married in a courthouse the first time and in a secular ceremony the second time.

My issue with religion is that it unfortunately offers an opportunity to separate people by drawing firm lines in the sand as to what is demanded of one another in terms of belief and custom. As religiosity increases, who can sit with you at the table often shrinks. The same holds true in other contexts, political divisions being the polarization du jour.

It seems to me that if your religion requires exclusion, you heard the sermon, but maybe missed the message.