We might look at the history of Sciforums' debates pertaining to atheism in order to establish a few a priori, which anyone is free to argue with.
• Atheists do not believe in God.
• There is no central, official governing atheist body.
• Atheism does not reject subjectivity or operate exclusively on a proof-only basis.
• Atheists do have their own individual superstitions and objectively-inexplicable perspectives.
Adam and Tiassa touched on the idea of whether atheists tend toward overt and detrimental objectivization of the world. On the one hand, such an objectivization is experiential to Tiassa; to the other, Adam has protested that this objectivization is not a necessary part of atheism.
But we're getting to a point where it's getting really quite difficult to perceive atheism as anything other than an anti-identification. That is, what we hear about atheism is what it is not. Understanding the diversity of individuals and the intellectual license that atheism inherently grants, though, one would hope that the atheists could possibly provide some affirmative presentation of what the absence of God gets them. However, as we see, atheism at Sciforums is largely a platform from which to criticize.
Thus, some sundry beliefs from the human endeavor:
• Ufos
• Ghosts
• Afterlife
• Love
• Right(s)
• State
• Familial obligation
• Couplehood/exclusivity
• Jealousy
• Property/ownership
• Morality
Take the first three--they're common inquiries to which we can expect a diverse response. But of the others, what you have before you is a core of questions of principle which, when I accuse atheism of cold and detrimental objectivity, reflect the reasons why.
My own atheistic experience reduced love to weakness, led to the downfall of my regard for either the state or human rights as an objective necessity, exposed family as a petty farce, trampled couplehood, ridiculed jealousy while elevating it to an art form, leaned on property and possession, and essentially threw out any sense of morality which regards other people as anything other than a target market.
But, being that I've been asked to accept on faith that this is not representative of the atheistic experience, I find the anti-identification somewhat worthy of ridicule.
However, as we cannot ever define a cohesive "atheist" body the way we might delineate a "Christian" or "Socialist" body, the identification of atheism as what it isn't cannot suffice.
Ufo's, ghosts, afterlife ... do all atheists reject such subjective mythologies, or do some accept them? Upon what foundation is acceptance based?
Do atheists love? (Of course they do.) But why?
Are atheists law-abiding citizens? Which law and why?
How does the atheist view "human rights"? Why? What objective basis exists for human rights?
Is the family of an atheist any more important to the atheist than anyone else? Why?
Are atheists, by standard, free-love? What are the objective bases of couplehood and exclusivity among atheists?
What, then, does the atheist say of jealousy?
Property is robbery; so say the godless Anarchists. Anyone? Anyone?
Morals: perhaps the utmost source of conflict 'twixt atheism and Christianity. It seems that the Christians cannot imagine morality for morals' sake. Upon what basis are right and wrong, in a moral context, determined?
I'll even throw in an assertion that comes from considerations of such points as I've enumerated: it seems to me that human beings are human beings, with largely common aspirations. Atheism rejects God, that is, authority in the abstract, but responds otherwise to equally unproven standards.
I'm curious about why this is. I've been asked to take on faith that atheists do not reflect my experience among them. Unfortunately, that sounds just like what the Christians tell me on occasion.
So instead of leaping to a faith conclusion, I thought I'd do take the more rational route and ask the atheists? I mean, after all, what is observed and experienced is apparently not valid, so the call goes out to the atheists: What shall I believe in faith?
thanx much,
Tiassa
• Atheists do not believe in God.
• There is no central, official governing atheist body.
• Atheism does not reject subjectivity or operate exclusively on a proof-only basis.
• Atheists do have their own individual superstitions and objectively-inexplicable perspectives.
Adam and Tiassa touched on the idea of whether atheists tend toward overt and detrimental objectivization of the world. On the one hand, such an objectivization is experiential to Tiassa; to the other, Adam has protested that this objectivization is not a necessary part of atheism.
But we're getting to a point where it's getting really quite difficult to perceive atheism as anything other than an anti-identification. That is, what we hear about atheism is what it is not. Understanding the diversity of individuals and the intellectual license that atheism inherently grants, though, one would hope that the atheists could possibly provide some affirmative presentation of what the absence of God gets them. However, as we see, atheism at Sciforums is largely a platform from which to criticize.
Thus, some sundry beliefs from the human endeavor:
• Ufos
• Ghosts
• Afterlife
• Love
• Right(s)
• State
• Familial obligation
• Couplehood/exclusivity
• Jealousy
• Property/ownership
• Morality
Take the first three--they're common inquiries to which we can expect a diverse response. But of the others, what you have before you is a core of questions of principle which, when I accuse atheism of cold and detrimental objectivity, reflect the reasons why.
My own atheistic experience reduced love to weakness, led to the downfall of my regard for either the state or human rights as an objective necessity, exposed family as a petty farce, trampled couplehood, ridiculed jealousy while elevating it to an art form, leaned on property and possession, and essentially threw out any sense of morality which regards other people as anything other than a target market.
But, being that I've been asked to accept on faith that this is not representative of the atheistic experience, I find the anti-identification somewhat worthy of ridicule.
However, as we cannot ever define a cohesive "atheist" body the way we might delineate a "Christian" or "Socialist" body, the identification of atheism as what it isn't cannot suffice.
Ufo's, ghosts, afterlife ... do all atheists reject such subjective mythologies, or do some accept them? Upon what foundation is acceptance based?
Do atheists love? (Of course they do.) But why?
Are atheists law-abiding citizens? Which law and why?
How does the atheist view "human rights"? Why? What objective basis exists for human rights?
Is the family of an atheist any more important to the atheist than anyone else? Why?
Are atheists, by standard, free-love? What are the objective bases of couplehood and exclusivity among atheists?
What, then, does the atheist say of jealousy?
Property is robbery; so say the godless Anarchists. Anyone? Anyone?
Morals: perhaps the utmost source of conflict 'twixt atheism and Christianity. It seems that the Christians cannot imagine morality for morals' sake. Upon what basis are right and wrong, in a moral context, determined?
I'll even throw in an assertion that comes from considerations of such points as I've enumerated: it seems to me that human beings are human beings, with largely common aspirations. Atheism rejects God, that is, authority in the abstract, but responds otherwise to equally unproven standards.
I'm curious about why this is. I've been asked to take on faith that atheists do not reflect my experience among them. Unfortunately, that sounds just like what the Christians tell me on occasion.
So instead of leaping to a faith conclusion, I thought I'd do take the more rational route and ask the atheists? I mean, after all, what is observed and experienced is apparently not valid, so the call goes out to the atheists: What shall I believe in faith?
thanx much,
Tiassa