There Is No Such Thing As An Atheist

[Space Patroller]

Nor any such thing as Atheism.

Why?

To "be" is to be something. But does not "atheist" attempt to define a person by what they're not?. Hence the absurdity of the Soviet system trying to teach atheism.

However, One cannot define what one is by a negative. That I do not believe in any supernatural beings deos not say what I do believe. I could be a Nihilist or some such non-objectivist.

Therefore, teh only value in "atheism" and 'atheist' are verbal shorthand.

What I do believe is that Man is the only Terrestrial creature defined by a volitional rational consciousness. I further believe that the sole proper tool of knowledge is reason, under the rule "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions"

Now, the question of the existence of God is not a pphilosphical one. All that philosophy can do is tell me how to decide if there is. Philosophy 'writes the operating system" that one uses to mentally function. It does not put the data or results in.

In fact, we Randites have more in common with a branch of Crustianity, Thomism, than with most of what is called atheism. We hold to metaphysical absolutism and moral certitude. Certaom;u Emvoronmentalism is as much mysticism as Creationism. Just look at the way they worship the sub-human at the expense of the human. Take any "evil" of the Left and you'll find it to be caused by people being psople. In fact, in 1977 I remarked that "All our liberals are becoming conservatives". The Environmentalist lunacy is the stuff that the conservative crackputs used to say in the 1950's and early 60's.

However the Cosmic Joke is on the Conservatives. Some day the liberals will get that they are the practitioners of "...on Earth as is is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread..." Come that day. The libs will "outflank" the conservatives, at least the theistic ones. It is the conservatives who preach the work ethic and the liberals who gave us Wicca as the alternative to industry (to facilitate the "post-industrial" society in the mid-70's). In fact, according to a survey menionted by Dr. Dean Edell, with some shock, more liberals believe in ghosts than conservatives.

It seems that the liberals are the next step in the evolution of mysticism

Edited February 16, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Maximus]

Randites? Try Objectivists. "Randities" implies a cult of personality, rather than one who adheres to the principle of the philosophy of Objectivism.

Atheism, from Wikipedia:

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist." Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God". Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.

What term do you propose to replace it? "Non-belief in god-ism?"

Edited February 16, 2009 by Maximus

[Space Patroller]

I use the term "Randite" or "Randism" in the sense of Aristotelian, Thomist, Cartesian or Platonist. I kind of shy away from Objectivist becasue objectivism is a technical term denoting all who believe in the a priori existence of the external, ontic or real world. Randians are a subset of objectivists as are Thomists and pure Aristotelians. Now was it a cult of personality for Rand to refer to herself as an Aristotelian? An example of what I mean by this distinction came about in the mid 1990's when Roland Musical Instruemnts put out a digital keyboard patterend after the Hammond organ which they called the "VK-7 Combo Organ". "Combo Organ" actually referred to the portable organs of the middle 1960's made by Vox, Farfisa, Elka and others, and specifically excluded Hammond organs. Roland was arrogating to itslef a term that pre-dated its instrument by 30 years. Also, in THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS set in the 22nd century. our philosophical decendents were called "Randites". For the reason aboive and since my intellectual roots are in science fiction. That is what I call myself

As to what to call non-believers, I said that "atheist" is a verbal shorthand. Why not call us by what we are rather than what we are not. Marxists are also atheists, Do you wish to be lumped in with them? I do not? If you had a friend named Anne, would you call her "Not-Linda"? Nihilists are both believers and non-believers. Christina Existentialism comes about becuase that non-philosophy holds that whether you believe in God is not important.

Beyond that, if you use a negative as a label, how do you grasp what actually? By defining by nagation. you rule out the Law of Identity since that law is based on what is is and is frustrated by what is isn't.

In fact, we are Agnostic. Thomas Huxley, who coined the term as self-descriptive, used it to mean a person who believe that knowledge of the Supernatural is not possible. Since I believe that to be true as must most of us, then we do not believe in God or deitites, or ghosts, goblins or elves by virtue of the fact that we hold that knowledge of the supernatural is not possible.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Space Patroller

[softwareNerd]

...we do not believe in God or deitites, or ghosts, goblins or elves by virtue of the fact that we hold that knowledge of the supernatural is not possible.

It is not precise to say that knowledge of goblins is not possible. Rather there is no evidence to suggest that goblins exist.

[TheEgoist]

Elves too.

Anyway, an atheist is just a word to denote your position on a relevant cultural question, whether or not there is a deity.

I reject your claim that we have more in common with the philosophy of Aquinas than we do with atheism. By definition we have everything on common with atheism since Objectivists don't believe in a deity. So, what is our connection with atheism? 100%. How much do we have in common with Thomism? I'm not schooled enough to answer that but anything that claims to be theistic or deistic is NOT absolutist. It is whimsical. That is the only way a person can claim to ever believe in god, by whim.

And yeah, don't refer to us, or at least me, as a Randite. That isn't what I am.

Edited February 16, 2009 by TheEgoist

[Zhuge Niu]

We don't call people who don't collect stamps aphilatelists.

[TheEgoist]

People who collect stamps don't make up about 90% of our population

People who collect stamps don't have an incredibly negative effect on the culture we live in.

People who collect stamps aren't really concerned with burdening us with their way of life.

People who collect stamps don't need to be fought on any level.

[DavidOdden]

An atheist is one who grasps the fact that god cannot exist. I am an atheist, and I do exist. I think that ought to resolve your problem about atheists not existing.

[DavidOdden]

I use the term "Randite" or "Randism" in the sense of Aristotelian, Thomist, Cartesian or Platonist. I kind of shy away from Objectivist becasue objectivism is a technical term denoting all who believe in the a priori existence of the external, ontic or real world.

<modhat>Objectivism is also a technical term referring to a poetry movement. Here, it refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. You can also refer to metaphysical objectivism as philosophical realism. Objectivism in the sense of Rand's philosophy is never called "Randism" and an Objectivist is never called a "Randite". Those terms are only used as sneering derisive names.</modhat>

[wilicyote]

Identy is, hiarchical.

I am Paul Frederiksen

The philosophy I follow is Objectivism

Within that philosophy, on the question of the existance of god, I am an athiest.

Clearly to try to make the term athiest be all encompassing would be to deny this hiarchical relationship.

Edited February 17, 2009 by wilicyote

[Space Patroller]

"Elves too. "

Had a crush on Galadriel, huh? Did you know that Tolkien was a Thomist. Few persons understand tht he was one serious dude and had quite a mind.

Anyway, an atheist is just a word to denote your position on a relevant cultural question, whether or not there is a deity.

Which is why I called it "verbal shorthand". But a skilled debater could tie you up by referencing things that you are not so that you'd be so turned around that you'd think that you're about to attack the Death Star when in fact you're about to put your proton torpedo into the Rebels' installation.

"I reject your claim that we have more in common with the philosophy of Aquinas than we do with atheism."

The existence of atheism is the topic of question. You're kind of using the the to-be-proved in the terms of proof If you support the philosophical system of Ayn Rand then you have more in common with Aquinas than with atheistic Existentialists and probably more in common with St. Thomas than with Karl Marx, who was, epistemologically a Kantian, by way of Compte and Hegel. It's a big wide world out there

"By definition we have everything on common with atheism"

With Lenin?

" since Objectivists don't believe in a deity."

That was my original attraction to Miss Rand back in '68. You don't know how shocked I was to find that she was a thoroughgoing pro-capitalist and how enlightened I was when I found out why. I used to be what was called a "Scientific Socialist"

" So, what is our connection with atheism? 100%. How much do we have in common with Thomism?"

You would be shocked, I was when I foind out what a huge fan of Aquinas Rand was,. What he did was bring the Aristotelian mode of thought fully into play in the Western world. What he was missing in the equation "factual premises + valid reasoning = true conclusions" was the factual premises.

I Parleyed my Randian view of history into an A in the Providence College 5-credit Western Civ course and have nothing but respect for the Dominicans as teachers

I'm not schooled enough to answer that but anything that claims to be theistic or deistic is NOT absolutist. It is whimsical. That is the only way a person can claim to ever believe in god, by whim."

Don't tell Ayn Rand that. She was a huge fan of Aquinas (shocked me, too back in '70 when I readi ti in The Objectivist. A person can believe in God because he is honestly mistaken, or because "God" has had so much attached to it that some of it is true.

http://www.cockpit.spacepatrol/ o9feb.html

Also, Robert Bidonotto has reported that Miss Rand said "It is not wrong to believe in God".

Also, persons are indoctrinated into religion at an age when they are too young to understand all of this and not as an act of evil but to give them a solid moral footing

"And yeah, don't refer to us, or at least me, as a Randite. That isn't what I am."

What you refer to as "the cult of personality", and there are thosw who fit that description, are what I call "Randies" taking my cue from 'moonies". From what I know, it would be very easy to be caught up in that since Miss Rand had quite a personality and a mind to match it

Edited February 17, 2009 by Space Patroller

[RationalBiker]

The short and simple of it is this; I am not a theist. That does not define my whole person, it defines a specific aspect of what I understand to be real. An atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. Whether or not one likes the term, it serves a useful purpose in providing a short explanation (which may need further explanation in some cases) on one's thoughts on "god" or "gods".

I am an atheist.

[Maximus]

Hey, Space Patroller, you might want to fix the quote tags in that last entry.

[Jake_Ellison]

I think you mean there's no such thing as atheism, in the sense of it being a set of coherent ideas, the way some , uninformed people may perceive it. I do agree with you on that: using the word atheism to identify a belief system would be wrong. It is a negative, and negatives don't identify something. We could use the word itself to describe a specific movement and system (thus changing its meaning-the way for instance Objectivism, in English, means the philosophy of Ayn Rand), but we don't. We're actually still arguing as to what it's supposed to mean.

(But there's no argument about what Objectivism, the philosophy means, so step right up, people, and use it with confidence

However, the word atheist definitely exists, it means "godless" in greek. It can be used as an adjective or adverb, or even as a noun, i.e. "my atheism" meaning " my godlessness".

And for instance to someone wishing to talk to me about how great God is, or the fineprints of the Bible, this one characteristic, my atheism, is plenty to identify me by, to tell them all they need to know about me.

Interesting fact: "theist" was derived from the word atheist (the French version of it), not the other way around. (after Europe started realizing that there are other religions besides Catholic)

Theist/theism don't actually come from greek or latin, only the word atheist does (originally greek, then latin, then french, then english).

[altonhare]

I agree with the general sentiment that labeling something via a negative is unproductive.

However, it is just as illogical for the theist to say s/he believes in God as it is for the atheist to say s/he doesn't believe in God. This is because there is no provision for belief in existence. God either exists or it doesn't, irregardless of your belief. If I become a born again Christian, does God suddenly exist? If I forget I own a gold watch, does it suddenly not exist? It's also illogical to prove or disprove existence.

This is the result of existence being axiomatic. It makes no sense to believe/prove or disbelieve/disprove axioms.

By the way http://www.evilbible.com

Edited February 24, 2009 by altonhare

[Jake_Ellison]

I agree with the general sentiment that labeling something via a negative is unproductive.

However, it is just as illogical for the theist to say s/he believes in God as it is for the atheist to say s/he doesn't believe in God. This is because there is no provision for belief in existence. God either exists or it doesn't, irregardless of your belief. If I become a born again Christian, does God suddenly exist? If I forget I own a gold watch, does it suddenly not exist? It's also illogical to prove or disprove existence.

This is the result of existence being axiomatic. It makes no sense to believe/prove or disbelieve/disprove axioms.

By the way http://www.evilbible.com

Actually, the result of observation being our only means of understanding existence-also an axiom- is that it is illogical to believe in the arbitrary (the made up, the fabricated, the imaginary, the thing with no evidence to support its existence).

Illogical to believe in the arbitrary, phrased differently: it is logical to not believe in the arbitrary.

Logic tells us what is and what isn't. Logic helps us decide whether God exists or not, by giving us a means to make such decisions: if there is no reason to believe He exists (but in fact there's plenty of evidence to suggest that He is the product of people's imagination), then the logical conclusion to draw is that He doesn't exist. When you dismiss that, and say that theism and atheism are equally invalid, you are dismissing all that logic behind atheism, and you are left with whatever people had before the Greeks came along.

Just as me claiming that there are elephants on the dark side of the moon is not the logical equivalent of someone claiming that there aren't, your equivocation is false. What you are doing is rejecting Objectivist epistmology, which is based among others on the axiom "Consciousness is Identification".

[prosperity]

It is not precise to say that knowledge of goblins is not possible. Rather there is no evidence to suggest that goblins exist.

I think this was discussed in OPAR. If I remember correctly, it largely depended on how it was asserted. If the arbitrary is being asserted, then knowledge of that arbitrary idea is not possible. It's neither true nor false. Cognitively, there is no way to analyze such a "concept". I think the concept of "god" was taken to be arbitrary, because one just starts out imagining some arbitrary being, claiming they exist. I think that applied to goblins also but could be mistaken. Seems that it is an arbitrary assertion.

[altonhare]

I think Prosp is supporting what I said in pointing out that Goblins/God/X exists is an arbitrary assertion and is "neither true nor false". If an entity is asserted to exist then one must explain some phenomenon with it, or how it came to be, etc. Based on the logic and reasoning of this explanation one decides if they will believe X exists or not.

So whether "God exists" or not depends solely on who's asking you and how they define "God". "God is a man who lives in my house". I have no reason to believe a man doesn't live in your house, and it seems reasonable, so I'll believe it until I have reason not to.

"God exists" or "Does God exist?" are, as Prosp pointed out, arbitrary. The person has just uttered sounds without connecting them to reality. These sounds are not right or wrong, they're just sounds (or symbols). An individual may decide that this arbitrary symbol "God" points to a supernatural, impossible entity and decide God can't exist. That's just because they have rendered it not arbitrary by assigning their own personal context.

You can insert anything you want for "God" in "Does God exist?" and the statement or question does not change at all. Only when the statement is given context is it meaningful to talk about what you or I believe.

[Jake_Ellison]

You can insert anything you want for "God" in "Does God exist?" and the statement or question does not change at all. Only when the statement is given context is it meaningful to talk about what you or I believe.

You can insert anything you want for "meaningful" in "Only when the statement is given context is it meaningful to talk about what you or I believe.".

So, the "Does God exist?" statement can be meaningful always or never, irrespective of what you insert for God, depending on what you insert for meaningful. Oh, but words can have different meanings, so maybe the second time I used meningful, I meant something else: that means that "Does God exist?" could be both meaningful and whatever I choose to use for "Not meaningful" (let's say orange eight legged puppy), at the same time. Especially since it's unclear what I mean by "not".

Is that orange eight legged puppy enough, used in the same sense as before, or do I need to confuse everyone further?

That's an annoying way to argue with someone, huh? Luckily, we don't have to do it, since we both already know what God and meaningful mean.

We can both agree that God is an arbitrary concept, and therefor it is illogical to believe that it exists. Hence, atheism is logical.

[altonhare]

You can insert anything you want for "meaningful" in "Only when the statement is given context is it meaningful to talk about what you or I believe.".

So, the "Does God exist?" statement can be meaningful always or never, irrespective of what you insert for God, depending on what you insert for meaningful. Oh, but words can have different meanings, so maybe the second time I used meningful, I meant something else: that means that "Does God exist?" could be both meaningful and whatever I choose to use for "Not meaningful" (let's say orange eight legged puppy), at the same time. Especially since it's unclear what I mean by "not".

Is that orange eight legged puppy enough, used in the same sense as before, or do I need to confuse everyone further?

That's an annoying way to argue with someone, huh? Luckily, we don't have to do it, since we both already know what God and meaningful mean.

We can both agree that God is an arbitrary concept, and therefor it is illogical to believe that it exists. Hence, atheism is logical.

We avoid this kind of absurdity and circularity by fundamentally defining thing/entity as: shape. Then we don't have to engage in endless circular definitions, we just point at the shape. If I pose that God exists I just point at God or a model of God. There is no ambiguity about what we're talking about now. If I point at something and say "God" there is no doubt that God exists, it is plainly before us. If you point at something and say it's a model of God, that you can't produce the genuine God because it is beyond your capacity, then the other person can decide for themselves if they believe what you are modeling exists.