The Scope of Atheism

[Prolescum]

I think I'm an acerbic-anti-anti-theistic-atheistic-anarchistic-anachronistic infundibulum of joy.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I think I'm an acerbic-anti-anti-theistic-atheistic-anarchistic-anachronistic infundibulum of joy.

That's sweet.

 

[varit]

I could have posted it in the Atheism sub-forum, but I think that something as (apparently ;-) ) philosophical as this, warrants a discussion of it here. This is my re-revised taxonomy of atheism, I have posted it before, in other forums:

THE SCOPE OF ATHEISM
..

I appreciate the list.


I don't think 1.2.1 is correct. You can be an agnostic atheist with negation. Gnostic is just absolute certainty isn't it?
1.2.1. Agnostic/Neutral Atheism / Neutralism (rejection without negation and without tendency towards negation)


On 1.2.2 You can be with negation.
1.2.2. Sceptical Atheism / "Quasi-Antitheism" (rejection without negation but with tendency towards negation)

A basic problem here, is that these terms can't be particular to atheism, and they're presented here as if they are.


On what you call "Provisional Scientific Atheism". I like that you've given a name to what I think is an important position.

Is there a mainstream philosophical name for this position, no doubt it wouldn't be contingent on atheism specifically.

 

[Dean]

Of course, some of these categories overlap, and it is more like they are mutually defining as you pointed out, and not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I put one of these on my SCAR-H in MW2, and did wonders on the battlefield.

 

[televator]

I too don't see many of these as mutually exclusive nor all as a requirement to be an atheist. Many of these can be singular atheistic conclusions and reasons to be an atheist. So while someone can come to be an atheist as a result of one of these conclusions, many of the rest certainly can follow as a result of time and thought.

 

[Welshidiot]

I too don't see many of these as mutually exclusive nor all as a requirement to be an atheist. Many of these can be singular atheistic conclusions and reasons to be an atheist. So while someone can come to be an atheist as a result of one of these conclusions, many of the rest certainly can follow as a result of time and thought.

Your view seems remarkably clear, are you using the night-vision goggles of scepticism?

 

[televator]

Your view seems remarkably clear, are you using the night-vision goggles of scepticism?

<---- Actually, that's the power of my Sharingan.

I just have my moments, and I can be lazy too so I just try to sum up my thoughts in the fewest word possible. I can't let compliments feed my ego, but thanks.

 

[Yfelsung]

I'm an anti-abrahamic nihilist. No idea if I fit in your scope or not.

By anti-abrahamic, I mean I would be very happy to see Christianity, Judaism and Islam wiped off the face of the planet. The Hindus and Buddhists don't bug me as much.

 

[Prolescum]

Bahahahahahahahahaha! Proximity breeds contempt. Westerners crack me up. How do you feel about the Bahà¡'à­?

 

[Yfelsung]

Bahahahahahahahahaha! Proximity breeds contempt. Westerners crack me up.

I've also studied world religion and the Hindus and Buddhists just don't really do much. They just kind of hang out and do their thing.

There's even an atheistic/materialistic sect of Hinduism and one could argue that Buddhism is somewhat atheistic.

 

[Dean]

[. . .]one could argue that Buddhism is somewhat atheistic.

Indeed, it is not a requirement of adherents to the doctrines of Buddhism to believe in any gods, at least not personal ones. It all depends, really. I don't actually agree with the idea that the tenets of Buddhism are inherently naturalistic. The original doctrines and traditional values of Buddhism are nevertheless replete with supernatural beings and entities. Although, apparently there is in fact a branch of old East Asian philosophy called "Buddhist Materialism". I don't even like how Buddhism is primarily articulated in the West as something of a quest for happiness, when the equivalent term is traditionally more akin to "bliss" or "contentment" that I interpret as "sublimation", threatening to fall into the same Western trap of hedonism in its publicised and popularised understandings. You can't separate or distil happiness from other corresponding sensations and moods. It's an experiential amalgam that we artificially reduce to and with an imposed mesh or net of categories. Things exist to discharge their natures with all its attendant affects: the crux of will to power.

Speaking of which: As Nietzsche pointed out, people sublimate their psyches in creative expression in order to gain satisfaction. It is the working towards, and not merely the pursuit of, happiness that is most significant. Religion provides rituals, observances and mantras. Science provides explorative and inventive endeavours. What about everyday people? The abstractions and surpluses of knowledge are not enough, if they cannot have cognitive value for the average person and stimulate affective aspects of the psyche. The question of ethics is really a question of meaningfulness and, by extention, purposefulness.

A shot from the hip, but I just thought these points were worth raising.

 

[Prolescum]

Dean, you've inadvertently attributed the words of the blasphemous one to me.

 

[Prolescum]

I've also studied world religion and the Hindus and Buddhists just don't really do much. They just kind of hang out and do their thing.

Yeah, those insignificant Hindus and their blowing up Sikhs. Or the irrelevant Sikhs blowing up the Hindus. Safer to pick on the ones everyone else picks on. Safety in numbers, right?

Also, the Bahà¡'à­ are (mostly abrahamic) monotheists. You have anything against them?

 

[Yfelsung]

I've also studied world religion and the Hindus and Buddhists just don't really do much. They just kind of hang out and do their thing.

Yeah, those insignificant Hindus and their blowing up Sikhs. Or the irrelevant Sikhs blowing up the Hindus. Safer to pick on the ones everyone else picks on. Safety in numbers, right?

Also, the Bahà¡'à­ are (mostly abrahamic) monotheists. You have anything against them?

I've never heard of Hindus and Sikhs blowing each other up, if that's true then I do have a problem with them.

My point still stands on Buddhism though.

And I am unfamiliar with the Bahai.

Most world religion courses basically cover the 5 big ones, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism.

And to a certain degree, you're right, familiarity breeds contempt. Buddhists and Hindus never slaughtered my ancestors for not believing in what they do, Christians and Muslims did.

 

[Prolescum]

My point still stands on Buddhism though.

That they just "kind of hang out and do their thing"? I suppose I can't fault that...

And I am unfamiliar with the Bahai.

But they're Abrahamic... You should be anti- them by default, non?

Most world religion courses basically cover the 5 big ones, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism.

Perhaps in Canada... So do Anglicans receive as much ire as the Baptists and the Sufi as much as the Wahabbi?

And to a certain degree, you're right, familiarity breeds contempt. Buddhists and Hindus never slaughtered my ancestors for not believing in what they do, Christians and Muslims did.

One presumes that, being Canadian and having the username you do, it's quite likely that your ancestors were also of the same ilk and therefore slaughtered by their spiritual brethren. I'm sure they would've done the same, and probably did.

 

[Yfelsung]

But they're Abrahamic... You should be anti- them by default, non?

As I said, I don't know anything about them. If one of the Abrahamic faiths managed to not be completely horrific to others I'd be pleasantly surprised.

Perhaps in Canada... So do Anglicans receive as much ire as the Baptists and the Sufi as much as the Wahabbi?

I generally go by the rule that "If you think the Bible/Koran/Torah is a good book to live your life by, you're probably seriously disturbed". Some act more on their disturbance than others.

One presumes that, being Canadian and having the username you do, it's quite likely that your ancestors were also of the same ilk.

My ancestors never killed for religious reasons until they became Christians.

They killed for gold, land, kicks and a whole lot of other reasons, but never for religion.

I have no problem with people doing horrible things, I have a problem with people doing horrific things under the cover of righteousness. I mean, hell, I'm Saxon, I'd be a hypocrite if I got down any anyone who ever did anything bad as my ancestors liked to combine migration, conquest and genocide into a delightful party.

If you're going to be a dick, do it with a smile on your face and your head held high. Not because "God" told you to.

 

[Prolescum]

But they're Abrahamic... You should be anti- them by default, non?

As I said, I don't know anything about them. If one of the Abrahamic faiths managed to not be completely horrific to others I'd be pleasantly surprised.

So you're not an anti-abrahamic nihilist, then?

Perhaps in Canada... So do Anglicans receive as much ire as the Baptists and the Sufi as much as the Wahabbi?

I generally go by the rule that "If you think the Bible/Koran/Torah is a good book to live your life by, you're probably seriously disturbed". Some act more on their disturbance than others.

So you are an anti-abrahamic nihilist, then? Dude, what the hell...?

One presumes that, being Canadian and having the username you do, it's quite likely that your ancestors were also of the same ilk.

My ancestors never killed for religious reasons until they became Christians.

You have data going that far back, do you?

They killed for gold, land, kicks and a whole lot of other reasons, but never for religion.

Care to expand upon your ancestors some?

I have no problem with people doing horrible things, I have a problem with people doing horrific things under the cover of righteousness.

You won't have a problem with me mocking you then, yes?

I mean, hell, I'm Saxon, I'd be a hypocrite if I got down any anyone who ever did anything bad as my ancestors liked to combine migration, conquest and genocide into a delightful party.

Fully Saxon? Did they spend over a thousand years hiding from the religious or what?

If you're going to be a dick, do it with a smile on your face and your head held high. Not because "God" told you to.

Okies.

 

[Yfelsung]

You can mock me all you want dude.

And I don't know if I'm anti Bahai or whatever they are because I have no idea what their beliefs entail or what they've done in history.

So far I have been anti-abrahamic because I've never met an abrahamic religion that wasn't deeply disturbed, if there's one that managed to pull off not being insane then I guess I may change my stance to being "anti abrahamic except for these dudes." If they follow the bible though, they're most likely deeply fucked up.

And my ancestors are primarily Saxon with a little Celtic mixed in for good measure. All warlike people, none of them ever recorded to have engaged in religious war until they were converted. Germanic pagans were actually known to specifically not spread their religion because their gods were considered personal to the Germanic people and not to be shared.

And yes, for a significant number of years my ancestors were Christian. It's a personal point of shame.

Luckily my family all went atheist a long time before I was born so I was born into atheism.

 

[Prolescum]

You can mock me all you want dude.

Cheers!

And I don't know if I'm anti Bahai or whatever they are because I have no idea what their beliefs entail or what they've done in history.

Why does that matter? You didn't care about the difference between an Anglican and a Baptist or a Sufi and a Wahabbi.

So far I have been anti-abrahamic because I've never met an abrahamic religion that wasn't deeply disturbed, if there's one that managed to pull off not being insane then I guess I may change my stance to being "anti abrahamic except for these dudes." If they follow the bible though, they're most likely deeply fucked up.

I see, so you dislike a couple of billion people based upon, well they're all the same, innit. Noted for future mockery.

And my ancestors are primarily Saxon with a little Celtic mixed in for good measure.

Lol, probably Angle, Norman and fucking Scandinavian too. Like the rest of genetically indistinguishable Western Europe.

All warlike people, none of them ever recorded to have engaged in religious war until they were converted.

So there were no records from a sparsely documented time and that's the basis for your claim? I think you might have to do a bit better than that, my ol' chum.

Germanic pagans were actually known to specifically not spread their religion because their gods were considered personal to the Germanic people and not to be shared.

Not my area of expertise (Germany), but the likelihood of you being even a high percentage of what we classify as Saxon is extremely slim.