| |
|
In fact the "atheism = immorality" argument is so threadbare that I'm (perhaps foolishly) surprised to see it brought up here.
But that's not actually what he's saying, is it? If you re-read it, you'll note the use of the term 'ultimately' in the first bit you've quoted, at the top of your post, which renders your defence a bit pointless. To whit:
One who sees only random forces behind why we humans find ourselves here is ultimately bound only by his or her own wants.
the existence of "good" atheists discounts the claim
No it doesn't. It merely demonstrates that many atheists do not behave according to their 'ultimate' belief structure (as, of course, is the case with theists and whatever else as well), but rather have modes of conduct according to societal / social dictates...the point, then, is on what basis these dictates have meaning, if any, or relevance outside of the completely arbitrary.
The bit about atheism being a belief system, leading you to say:
The key claim that consistently demonstrates that the claimant doesn't actually understand atheism.
and the other fellow to add
To which I don't think its too much to reply; “Atheism is a religion (belief system) just as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
Hmm...I'm not completely convinced by the example. Obviously, it is easy to trip over this fallacy...to suggest, for example, that 'cold' is a thing, or 'darkness', when of course they are both merely absences of something extant.
However the experience of cold and of darkness, and the thoughts, leading to beliefs, which arise from such are things in and of themselves. No?
'The dark is frightening.'. This is a belief. One cannot invalidate the fear of somebody who holds this belief by pointing out that 'dark is not a thing. It is the absence of a thing'. The belief itself exists independently of the subject matter. And to counter claim 'No, the dark is not frightening' is not an absence of belief in the frightening dark, it is a belief that the dark is not frightening.
Otherwise, we end up with every negation or denial being a non-belief, surely?
'Beliefs' are clearly a little more nebulous, and not necessarily comparable to perceived physical processes and/or hobbies. Agnosticism, as far as we have been able to define it, certainly demonstrates an absence of any conclusion and possibly any attempt to reach one. The agnostic has no answer, the question is left open. Agnosticism is not a belief, so much as an ongoing enquiry or acceptance that the answer is unknowable.
However, in as much as a belief can be fairly described as 'a firm opinion', to categorically state, 'There is not Deity, the Universe has no Creator'...
Well, that's a belief, surely? In as much as beliefs can be either affirmations or denials, it is a denial, a counterpoint to the theistic point. The two, necessarily, arise together. To claim that a counterpoint to a point has no existence is an interesting rhetorical tactic, but denies the duality of holding any opinion at all. The assumption of the self-identification 'atheist' involves a sepcific belief about the nature of the Universe and Life - namely, that 'God' is an imaginary notion and thus has nothing to do with either.
As a better example than the 'hobby' one, let's take the example of another, abstract 'belief' : the belief in reincarnation.
This does not require any Gods, and is a central tenet of Buddhism...
So, many people believe that they are bound to live through many incarnations, according to their karma.
If you, on the other hand, believe that when you die, you just die, that's it, lights out, does that mean you do not have a belief system regarding what happens to you when you die?
I take your point that the label itself describes an absence, but the absence necessarily entails a consideration of the thing, and rejection / denial thereof. Thoughts are 'things' in and of themselves, no?
From the wiki:
Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (those which you may be actively thinking about) and dispositional beliefs (those which you may ascribe to but have never previously thought about). For example, if asked 'do you believe tigers wear pink pyjamas ?' a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact they may never have thought about this situation before.
Sorry, I'm not around for the next few days, so can't really continue with this...(probably a good thing, let's face it.)
Ciao for now. |
|
|
