Still trying to get the hang of this non-belief thing

[learnin]

Take the story of Barrabas.  The Jewish people were given the choice between releasing a notorious criminal and a man who, supposedly, had done nothing wrong.  In the context, it is amazing to me because you have a man who, supposedly, was to take the guilt of humanity upon himself and you have it all played out with a hardened criminal being set free because of the innocent man being despised.  Try as I may, I can't see a fiction writer coming up with something like this.  There are other happenings, recorded in the gospels, that I can't easily dismiss.   

It was never the practice of the Romans to give the people the choice of which criminal to let free.
That is exactly why this is a fiction story.
You also understand that Barrabas literally means the (son of father or Jesus son of father).
So the people were given a choice between Jesus the son of father or Jesus the son of Father.
A perfect fiction story.

Actually, the story says that Pilate had the option to grant a pardon.  So, it wasn't a practice of letting people choose which criminal went free.   Since Pilate had the option to pardon a prisoner, and since the people were begging for the blood of an innocent man, Pilate saw a way out by giving the people an option.  He believed they would surely release Jesus since Barrabas was probably feared by the general populace.  If this is fiction, it surely is written by someone who had a great grasp of psychology and human nature because there is a great deal to ponder here.  In other words, the author could have written an excellent novel as the whole trial scene with the animosity between Herod and Pilate; Pilate's conscience; the mob clamoring for the blood of an innocent man....I think this is one of the reasons that people have such a hard time letting go of it.  It is actually quite a powerful story.

[Turbo SS]

Onesimus :  Reading your post gave me nothing in which to look forward to. I am a believer, but after wandering around this forum for the last week or so, I am starting to wonder what it is I believe in. I could give argument to my beliefs but for every one I give, I have read one against it. And one backed up with fact. I mean how do you fight fact with wishful thinking?
I to believe that if I was to give up the lord that an empty feeling would grow within me. Like I would be leaving something important behind. However the facts that have been laid out before me can not be ignored by anyone with even a small amount of intelligence. I too feel like once again I am at a cross road. What makes this sad for me is I only came here to get the other side's view for a school paper I am doing. In doing so I now find myself doubting a belief that I was sure of less than 2 weeks ago. Funny how things turn out.

Good for you.  It seems most believers metaphorically put their fingers in their ears and go na na na i cant hear you.  I am glad you are open minded enough to see where the other side is coming from.  Even if you stay a believer, you at least gained some wisdom.

[Lorax]

It seems to me that the generalized sense of dissatisfaction that some of you are feeling stems from the fact that atheism is not a proper worldview.

Which is not to say that it is wrong, or bad. It's just invalid in that context. it's like somebody asking what kind of car you drive and saying "I like bananas" well yes you very well might, and if so I'm happy for you, but there's still the problem of discerning what sort of car you drive.

Atheism doesn't do the same sort of things Christianity does, or that another religion would. it really doesn't do anything at all because it's not a thing. it's an un-thing. It just so happens that it often corresponds with some other things that begin to fill that void. Naturalism, Materialism, Capitalism, Humanism... even the militant side of the new atheist movement, helps to provide something to belong to, and to care about.

Now that you're an atheist, you've got to get yourself a worldview.

[DVZ3]

Which is not to say that it is wrong, or bad. It's just invalid in that context. it's like somebody asking what kind of car you drive and saying "I like bananas" well yes you very well might, and if so I'm happy for you, but there's still the problem of discerning what sort of car you drive.

You're analogy is absolutely horrible!  First off, your analogy assumes that the person you are asking what kind of car they drive (you are meaning this to mean what kind is your religion?) actually drives a car!  What if we don’t drive a car!? This is the bases of asking an atheist what is our religion.  We don’t have one, meaning we don’t drive an imaginary car like you do….

Why is this so hard to understand!? 

[Turbo SS]

Which is not to say that it is wrong, or bad. It's just invalid in that context. it's like somebody asking what kind of car you drive and saying "I like bananas" well yes you very well might, and if so I'm happy for you, but there's still the problem of discerning what sort of car you drive.

You're analogy is absolutely horrible!  First off, your analogy assumes that the person you are asking what kind of car they drive (you are meaning this to mean what kind is your religion?) actually drives a car!  What if we don’t drive a car!? This is the bases of asking an atheist what is our religion.  We don’t have one, meaning we don’t drive an imaginary car like you do….

Why is this so hard to understand!? 

agreed.  I like the analogy of christians like vanilla. muslims like chocolate. mormons like mint.  Then you ask an atheist what kind of ice cream they like.  The answer would be atheists dont like ice cream.  Seems easy enough to me.

[velkyn]

It seems to me that the generalized sense of dissatisfaction that some of you are feeling stems from the fact that atheism is not a proper worldview.

Lorax, this is the usual theist lie that somehow atheists are unhappy.  Sorry to ruin your hope but we’re not.

Which is not to say that it is wrong, or bad. It's just invalid in that context. it's like somebody asking what kind of car you drive and saying "I like bananas" well yes you very well might, and if so I'm happy for you, but there's still the problem of discerning what sort of car you drive.

  That’s hilarious, you trying to now say that it’s not wrong or bad to hold a “proper” worldview.  What is proper about baseless claims about magic beings in the sky?   Atheism can contribute to a worldview, most especially that one has to do for one’s self. 

Atheism doesn't do the same sort of things Christianity does, or that another religion would. it really doesn't do anything at all because it's not a thing. it's an un-thing. It just so happens that it often corresponds with some other things that begin to fill that void. Naturalism, Materialism, Capitalism, Humanism... even the militant side of the new atheist movement, helps to provide something to belong to, and to care about.

You are right, atheism is the lack of belief in any god. Christianity does many things, none of them special or unique.  It causes hatred, intolerance, it also professes that one should turn one’s cheek and love your neighbor.  It contradicts it self so much. 

Now that you're an atheist, you've got to get yourself a worldview.

  and all atheists have those.  Happily, they usually aren’t as primitive and ignorant as religions are.

[ParkingPlaces]

Atheism isn't the source of my world view. But my lack of a mind-numbing belief systems that has pretended for thousands of years to have all the answers helps immensely when I look at specific problems and/or situations in the world. Like members of another culture or when considering a new social norm.

Just like my apparently low testosterone level keeps me from wanting to hit everyone around me on top of the head.

Just like my lack of political certitude keeps me from thinking I know what is right for everyone else. Or else.

All theism artificially limits the believers ability to consider a range or solutions to any given problem, because some goat-herd or other ancient and uneducated individual said something back then that got written down. And accepted. And deified. Or else.

Until atheists start burning folks at the stake, you don't need to worry about us. Worry about yourselves.

[Lorax]

Which is not to say that it is wrong, or bad. It's just invalid in that context. it's like somebody asking what kind of car you drive and saying "I like bananas" well yes you very well might, and if so I'm happy for you, but there's still the problem of discerning what sort of car you drive.

You're analogy is absolutely horrible!  First off, your analogy assumes that the person you are asking what kind of car they drive (you are meaning this to mean what kind is your religion?) actually drives a car!  What if we don’t drive a car!? This is the bases of asking an atheist what is our religion.  We don’t have one, meaning we don’t drive an imaginary car like you do….

Why is this so hard to understand!? 

Fair enough. but "I don't drive a car" is still a valid sort of answer, although it's still another un-thing leading into another question, such as "how do you get around?" and perhaps your answer is still "I don't, I reject your westernized notions of motion and transportation and have lived my whole life in the spot in which is was born" That's fine, but if that's the case I suspect there will be a certain amount of lack you experience because of it.

For my money I believe most atheists do "drive a car" that is that they do have some sort of world view. That worldview just isn't "atheism" it's nationalism, or death metal or something. Atheism is another thing.

Perhaps your right. "I like bananas" stretches the analogy too far, I thought at the time that it made the point clearer to exaggerate but I suppose it may have confused it. Maybe "I'm an atheist" is more like answering "Not a Dodge"

[Lorax]

Atheism isn't the source of my world view. But my lack of a mind-numbing belief systems that has pretended for thousands of years to have all the answers helps immensely when I look at specific problems and/or situations in the world. Like members of another culture or when considering a new social norm.

Just like my apparently low testosterone level keeps me from wanting to hit everyone around me on top of the head.

Just like my lack of political certitude keeps me from thinking I know what is right for everyone else. Or else.

All theism artificially limits the believers ability to consider a range or solutions to any given problem, because some goat-herd or other ancient and uneducated individual said something back then that got written down. And accepted. And deified. Or else.

Until atheists start burning folks at the stake, you don't need to worry about us. Worry about yourselves.

Exactly.

That's what I meant.

And I didn't mean to imply I was worried

[Lorax]

It seems to me that the generalized sense of dissatisfaction that some of you are feeling stems from the fact that atheism is not a proper worldview.

Lorax, this is the usual theist lie that somehow atheists are unhappy.  Sorry to ruin your hope but we’re not.

Right, No. Only like 3 of you are unhappy

Which is not to say that it is wrong, or bad. It's just invalid in that context. it's like somebody asking what kind of car you drive and saying "I like bananas" well yes you very well might, and if so I'm happy for you, but there's still the problem of discerning what sort of car you drive.

  That’s hilarious, you trying to now say that it’s not wrong or bad to hold a “proper” worldview.  What is proper about baseless claims about magic beings in the sky?   Atheism can contribute to a worldview, most especially that one has to do for one’s self. 

Actually I was claiming that it is not wrong or bad that atheism is not a proper worldview

Although now that you mention it, it is also not wrong or bad to hold a proper worldview.

Nonetheless some proper worldviews are indeed quite bad. Not because they are proper worldviews, just because they are lousy.


And you're quite right, although atheism is not a worldview in and of itself it can certainty contribute towards it. or nudge you in a direction. Like those cereal commercials in the 90s for cereals that are part of a complete breakfast. Incidentally they are also part of a thousand incomplete breakfasts

Atheism doesn't do the same sort of things Christianity does, or that another religion would. it really doesn't do anything at all because it's not a thing. it's an un-thing. It just so happens that it often corresponds with some other things that begin to fill that void. Naturalism, Materialism, Capitalism, Humanism... even the militant side of the new atheist movement, helps to provide something to belong to, and to care about.

You are right,

I AM??? Super awesome. I'm gonna do the "I'm right" dance!

atheism is the lack of belief in any god. Christianity does many things, none of them special or unique.  It causes hatred, intolerance, it also professes that one should turn one’s cheek and love your neighbor.  It contradicts it self so much. 

Now that you're an atheist, you've got to get yourself a worldview.

  and all atheists have those.  Happily, they usually aren’t as primitive and ignorant as religions are.

ALL atheists?

If you say so...

[wright]

ALL atheists?

If you say so...

Well, what would your definition of a "worldview" be? Some people have such a skewed perception of themselves / others / the world in general that they need to be locked up, but the rest of us get by with varying levels of success. Can you provide an example of atheists who you think don't have a worldview, or a bad one?

[velkyn]

Right, No. Only like 3 of you are unhappy

Not sure where you are going with your claims of “generalized sense of dissatisfaction”.  Expand on this. Why do you seem to think that atheists, or perhaps just people on this board are “generally dissatisfied”?   Examples?

Actually I was claiming that it is not wrong or bad that atheism is not a proper worldview

You said “It seems to me that the generalized sense of dissatisfaction that some of you are feeling stems from the fact that atheism is not a proper worldview.”  You have claimed that it is a fact that atheism isn’t a proper world view.  You then said there was nothing wrong with this.  I’m asking you what is a “proper world view?  My question is based on you declaring that there are and are not “proper” worldviews.  Proper often means “correct”. Do you mean it in this fashion?   This is what makes me wonder about your following claim that you find that it isn’t “to say that it is wrong or bad”.

I see that you do go on to say that you find “proper” world views that can be bad.  You might want to consider another word than “proper” or simply say “world views”.

You also seem like a bit of a jackass with your non-sequiturs.

I am an atheist and I do have a world view, though I rather doubt it fits into anyone’s nice boxes.  I have no idea why you think you know that all atheists dont’ have a world view.  This might clarify things. Define world view.  And tell me if a world view must fit into a nice neat box that can be pigeonholed.   

[Lorax]

ALL atheists?

If you say so...

Well, what would your definition of a "worldview" be? Some people have such a skewed perception of themselves / others / the world in general that they need to be locked up, but the rest of us get by with varying levels of success. Can you provide an example of atheists who you think don't have a worldview, or a bad one?

from Wikipedia: A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.

I suppose that is as good a definition as any.

And no, I have no examples to counter the claim that all atheists have a worldview. It just seemed like a very bold claim to make.

[One Above All]

It just seemed like a very bold claim to make.

To claim that all individuals (yes, individuals; not just atheists) have "cognitive orientation"? Truly, this is a very bold claim.

[Lorax]

Right, No. Only like 3 of you are unhappy

Not sure where you are going with your claims of “generalized sense of dissatisfaction”.  Expand on this. Why do you seem to think that atheists, or perhaps just people on this board are “generally dissatisfied”?   Examples?

I was primarily responding to Onesimus, but also Riley. Others on the board expressed empathy or sympathy but i won't presume to know which

Actually I was claiming that it is not wrong or bad that atheism is not a proper worldview

You said “It seems to me that the generalized sense of dissatisfaction that some of you are feeling stems from the fact that atheism is not a proper worldview.”  You have claimed that it is a fact that atheism isn’t a proper world view.  You then said there was nothing wrong with this.  I’m asking you what is a “proper world view?  My question is based on you declaring that there are and are not “proper” worldviews.  Proper often means “correct”. Do you mean it in this fashion?   This is what makes me wonder about your following claim that you find that it isn’t “to say that it is wrong or bad”.

Right Right Right. "Proper" does often mean "correct" and I wasn't using it that way in this context, So I wrote the second paragraph to clarify that by "Improper" I did not mean "incorrect". Rather I meant that it would be an inappropriate categorization to claim it is a worldview

I see that you do go on to say that you find “proper” world views that can be bad.  You might want to consider another word than “proper” or simply say “world views”.

I see.

Yes indeed it is not a world view at all

You also seem like a bit of a jackass with your non-sequiturs.

Fuck you very much

I am an atheist and I do have a world view, though I rather doubt it fits into anyone’s nice boxes.  I have no idea why you think you know that all atheists dont’ have a world view.  This might clarify things. Define world view.  And tell me if a world view must fit into a nice neat box that can be pigeonholed.

I made no such claim, in fact I made very much the opposite claim several times. I believe most (perhaps all as you insist) atheists do indeed have a worldview. That worldview simply is something other than atheism.

I have already defined worldview in my previous response. and to answer your question, No, I believe you are permitted to have any sort of worldview you want no matter how inscrutable

[Tero]

Life is a kind of recycling program. As long as there is stuff. And it's all made of the same stuff, orgasms, laughter and pain too.

Try Unitarianism, it's a kind of half way house. If you can  stand liberals and tolerance.

[Azdgari]

It's funny.  You get the theists that come by and try to characterize atheism as a dogmatic religion.  And then you get the theists who come by and characterize it as not even being a worldview.

The latter group (to which Lorax belongs) is correct, of course.  But it'd be nice if they told it to the former group for us.

[One Above All]

It's funny.  You get the theists that come by and try to characterize atheism as a dogmatic religion.  And then you get the theists who come by and characterize it as not even being a worldview.

The latter group (to which Lorax belongs) is correct, of course.  But it'd be nice if they told it to the former group for us.

But apparently at least one of the latter seems to think that some atheists lack a worldview altogether, despite the fact that that is impossible, unless a person has never experienced anything.

[Lorax]

It just seemed like a very bold claim to make.

To claim that all individuals (yes, individuals; not just atheists) have "cognitive orientation"? Truly, this is a very bold claim.

It's funny.  You get the theists that come by and try to characterize atheism as a dogmatic religion.  And then you get the theists who come by and characterize it as not even being a worldview.

The latter group (to which Lorax belongs) is correct, of course.  But it'd be nice if they told it to the former group for us.

But apparently at least one of the latter seems to think that some atheists lack a worldview altogether, despite the fact that that is impossible, unless a person has never experienced anything.

I made no such claim.

What I did was leave room for that possibility. I was using a somewhat stricter definition of worldview than you were that included terms like "encompassing the entirety of an individuals knowledge" and i wanted to leave room, for someone to be confused, undecided, insane, or otherwise unaffiliated. I suspect Onesimus may be in that camp and that may be why he is experiencing ennui.

I should mention that I would leave that same space open for thiests, agnostics and others. I tend to dislike universal statements.

Granted if I use your broader definition, then any human with functioning mental faculties has some sort of worldview.

[kin hell]

It seems to me that the generalized sense of dissatisfaction that some of you are feeling stems from the fact that atheism is not a proper worldview.

.........well thanks for providing a definite focal point for my "supposed" generalised sense of dissatisfaction.

Presumption is a practised art form for theists.
Obviously, as theists cannot expect to come to informed conclusions from rational inspection, then the toolset of the irrational must rule.

Please do not apply such a laughably inaccurate tool as presumption, in regards to me, or I'll feel obliged to educate you in the specifics of the real
 byproducts of my rational world view consistently coming into contact with the sad relinquishing of responsibility, rationality, and intellectual honesty that is theistic "faith".

[One Above All]

What I did was leave room for that possibility. I was using a somewhat stricter definition of worldview than you were that included terms like "encompassing the entirety of an individuals knowledge" and i wanted to leave room, for someone to be confused, undecided, insane, or otherwise unaffiliated. I suspect Onesimus may be in that camp and that may be why he is experiencing ennui.

That would depend on how you define knowledge. Absolute certainty?[1] Does not and cannot exist. Knowing the "right" things? Also doesn't exist. What the "right" things are is purely subjective. Relative certainty?[2] Any sentient being has this.

I should mention that I would leave that same space open for thiests, agnostics and others. I tend to dislike universal statements.

Gnosticism refers to knowledge. Agnosticism, therefore, is lack of knowledge. It is not a middle-ground between atheism and theism. One can be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist or agnostic theist.
One cannot be purely agnostic, unless one literally lacks knowledge about deities entirely[3].

1.	As in, 100% non-subjective certainty.
2.	An individual is certain of something; whether that thing is true or not is irrelevant.
3.	Has never heard of and has never considered what the term "deity" means.

[Lorax]

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

I allow individuals who identify themselves as agnostic to supply their own definition of what they think that means, but personally I agree that your definition is the one I wish everyone would use

And I am amazed as Kirin Hell's ability to get offended at what I consider the innocuous sharing of an opinion. But to each his own.

[One Above All]

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

And what is your standard for when something is justified?

I allow individuals who identify themselves as agnostic to supply their own definition of what they think that means, but personally I agree that your definition is the one I wish everyone would use

Any other definition becomes meaningless in a conversation. One cannot lack belief and also lack non-belief. That's like saying that a coin didn't land with either side facing up - it just hovered for eternity.
If we use the actual definition, it (the answer) just becomes stupid. You're asking "A or B?" and they're answering "C".

[Lorax]

I define knowledge as justified true belief.

And what is your standard for when something is justified?

That is indeed the question.

It doesn't necessarily need to be well justified, so long as it is justified. It doesn't count as knowledge if it's just a lucky guess.

This get's eerie when one realizes that it implies that while I might have a definition of knowledge (that is to say, I know what I mean when I say the word "knowledge") I do not have knowledge of what knowledge is (that is, I don't know which of the justified beliefs I myself hold are true, only which ones I think are true)

I allow individuals who identify themselves as agnostic to supply their own definition of what they think that means, but personally I agree that your definition is the one I wish everyone would use

Any other definition becomes meaningless in a conversation. One cannot lack belief and also lack non-belief. That's like saying that a coin didn't land with either side facing up - it just hovered for eternity.
If we use the actual definition, it (the answer) just becomes stupid. You're asking "A or B?" and they're answering "C".

Again I agree. But I can't wait to hear you explain that to a strong agnostic

[One Above All]

That is indeed the question.

It doesn't necessarily need to be well justified, so long as it is justified. It doesn't count as knowledge if it's just a lucky guess.

So, once again, everyone has a worldview, save for those who have been in a coma since they were born, because everyone has some justification for what they hold to be true, even if that justification is flimsy at best.

Again I agree. But I can't wait to hear you explain that to a strong agnostic

...What the hell is a strong agnostic?
"I'm really, REALLY sure that I don't know!" or something like that?

[Lorax]

Something like that

[velkyn]

I was primarily responding to Onesimus, but also Riley. Others on the board expressed empathy or sympathy but i won't presume to know which

Lorax, I’m asking you question and it was not about who you were responding to.  Why do you seem to think that atheists, or perhaps just people on this board are “generally dissatisfied”?

Right Right Right. "Proper" does often mean "correct" and I wasn't using it that way in this context, So I wrote the second paragraph to clarify that by "Improper" I did not mean "incorrect". Rather I meant that it would be an inappropriate categorization to claim it is a worldview.

  Okay, that’s good. 

Fuck you very much

  Hmmm, seems I was right.

I made no such claim, in fact I made very much the opposite claim several times. I believe most (perhaps all as you insist) atheists do indeed have a worldview. That worldview simply is something other than atheism.

Please do show how anyone can exist without a world view and we can go with the wiki definition. 

I have already defined worldview in my previous response. and to answer your question, No, I believe you are permitted to have any sort of worldview you want no matter how inscrutable

  I agree, to a point.  As soon as a worldview causes harm, then it should be challenged and hopefully eradicated. 

I am curious about one phrase you used “I define knowledge as justified true belief.”  Can you expound on what you mean by “justified”?   I don’t find your response to Lucifer to be adequate, simply claiming that “It doesn't necessarily need to be well justified, so long as it is justified” is just avoiding defining what you mean by justified.

[learnin]

Until atheists start burning folks at the stake, you don't need to worry about us. Worry about yourselves.

But, atheists might do just this if they held power in any particular country....just like all other philosophies have done when they get absolute power.

[One Above All]

But, atheists might do just this if they held power in any particular country....just like all other philosophies have done when they get absolute power.

Not only is atheism not a philosophy (and ignoring the fact that those "philosophies" were, in fact, religions), statistics show that less religious areas are better in virtually every single way. Education, health, crime, et cetera.