Charles Darwin is too controversial for the U.S.

Remove all ads!

I'm not missing your point at all.

...and here lies the fatal flaw of your argument. Insist as you will that there are only so many ways for one to not believe in God, and I will gladly point out that there are only so many ways to believe in God, too. All of the world's religions fall into one of two categories -- polytheism and monotheism.

This is all beside point, anyway, since the main difference between the many faiths out there lies not with the attributes of our supposed creator(s), but with how that creator thinks we should conduct ourselves in our daily lives; how we should make our moral decisions; what kind of clothing we should wear; who we can have sex with, when we can have sex, and the position(s) we're allowed to use; how many cherubs we should carve onto our luggage; whether we should eat pork, Twinkies or Ice Cream -- or whether eating any meat at all is even permissible; the proper procedure for ritualistically sacrificing our virgins or ripping off our dove's heads; when and how to stone an unruly child in the town square...I could go on, but I think you get the point. When I state -- over and over again -- that atheists do not share a common set of values, I'm talking about their values, not their (obviously somewhat uniform) skepticism of all things supernatural. The moral values and ethical standards held by atheists vary every bit as much as the values of theists, and belief in the supernatural, may I add, is not even a value. At the risk of stating the obvious -- again -- belief in the supernatural is........wait for it........a belief.

 

Ah, but the critical difference I'm trying to get across is that, for theists, their values are a direct result (or cause, depending on your view) of their religion. For an atheist, they're completely unrelated. Basically, atheism only incorporates a very few number of variables into the idea (are there no gods or are you unsure, how devoted are you to the idea). Everything else has no more bearing on atheism than a theist's favorite color has on their religion. Theism, however, automatically incorporates a vast number of ethical standards and values, some of which you already started listing, while a great many more are 'common options' (i.e. some religions say nothing about it, but many others do say things).

 

NOG: an important caveat -- theism teaches a vast number of ethical standards and values. They are not automatically "incorporated." While many theists may live a certain way out of fear of punishment in the hereafter, atheists mostly live the same standards because it is a basic part of their personal ethic, not a dictated one.

 

You don't say? This. is. exactly. the. point. I've. been. making. all. along. You, sir, have personally articulated the very reason that your argument that atheists somehow share common values beyond their shared disbelief in Gods is such utter bull****. You have articulated exactly why atheists aren't organized around a common sense of principles or beliefs the way Catholics, Muslims, or Hindus are -- because an atheist's non-belief in Gods stands completely and utterly disconnected from his moral values. His moral values are, as T2 points out, "are not automatically incorporated" from his non-belief, and the personal values held by each atheist vary substantially from person to person. If you would have just conceded this point in the first place, we would have been able to skip the rest of this dog and pony show.

For an easy illustration of the range of different values held by atheists, you need look no further than at me and T2. I'm a vegan. I raise my children to be vegan, and I believe that meat consumption is quite a bit more than just a "very bad thing". T2 is (as far as I'm aware) not a vegan or even a vegetarian, and he almost certainly doesn't share my dim view of meat consumption. T2 is unabashedly pro-choice. My views on abortion are much less forgiving -- I was once unequivocally pro-life, and while my views on how the matter should be legislated have recently softened, they've softened only grudgingly, and only a little -- I still believe that abortion shouldn't be legal at all* past the first trimester -- and that it shouldn't necessarily be legal for the entire first trimester, either.

* With the obvious exceptions made for severe birth defects, health of the mother, etc.

 

But this can be quite easily explained. For atheists, other considerations outside of religion are of more importance, for determining morality. That's also why it's nonsense to categorize people on the basis of their *lacking* a certain moral basis.

T2 is a faithful conservative, supporting nationalism and capitalism. Drew has more of a 'bleeding heart', strongly opposing the harm he sees in the meat industry and abortion. For me, the injustices of the meat industry are of lower priority. And I think ending a foetus's life doesn't way up to the suffering of a woman who is forced to bring an unwanted/unsupportable child into the world.
These are 3 atheists who even share similarities (Boards members, so a bit nerdy), but still we couldn't be more different in our moral values. To claim that we are getting more and more 'organized', is preposterous. Religion may be the only thing we do agree on, but even that isn't guaranteed.
Seeing atheistm as a unifying characteristic is a very theistic perspective, but it lacks a realistic basis.

 

may I suggest: Oversimplifies for the sake of the argument, to an extent that the argument itself becomes meaningless.

Atheists are too heterogeneous to be described as Theism's antipodes. On can say at best that Atheists don't believe in a god, whereas Theists do. Not really a brilliant insight. And that's about it. After that things get complicated quickly. Now when one shoehorns all that into the antipode dichotomy anyway, well, then I presume, as we have seen, one can (q.e.d) make the argument. It's just that nobody else will buy it any more. That is the simple source for a lot of the agonising in this and other related threads.

 

Well, I was talking about the teaching, so I meant automatically incorporated into the teaching. You're right that not everyone conforms to them.

Drew, I don't believe I've ever argued that atheists share common values beyond disbelief in gods. I've argued that firm disbelief (i.e. they don't exist) is itself a belief, and thus that Atheism (when limited to that firm disbelief) is itself a belief. I've also argued that a common sub-set of atheism (akin to a religion of theism) is what I call 'scientism'.

The arguement we're having is not about beliefs, but about likelyhood to organize. As I've said, the #1 driving factor for a group to organize (even loosely) is social pressure. If everyone else around you believes in gods, you will seek out others who don't. If everyone around you loves turnips, you will seek out others who don't (I'm assuming you don't like them). That is why I say atheists are more likely to organize than theists, but not as likely to organize as members of a particular religion.


Let me put it this way, as absolute proof of my claim:
There are plenty of organizations based on shared religion.
There are a number of organizations based on shared atheism.
I have never heard of an organization based on shared group theism that wasn't also based on religion (i.e. the 'We all believe in gods of some kind' club).

Assuming that the above is representative of the world as a whole, that proves that atheists are more likely to organize than theists, but less likely to do so than religions.

 

In Holland, we have centre-right parties: the Christian Democratic Appèl and Christian Union. Both represent multiple branches of religion, and even jews and muslims vote for them. They represent a collective theist interest in politics.
On the other hand, there is no party I know of that represents a collective atheist interest... No party openly tackles religion, and none have 'atheist opposition' as a main point in their political agenda.

 

Do they operate like the GOP in the US? If so then I would say there can be a religious aspect to them but it is often limited (even abused at times). Moreover there are religiously supported goals that it opposes (or has). I wanted to bring that up because while many talk about the "social conservatives" here in the US GOP there are a number of economic conservatives that have been involved in making policy and are far from being concerned with/serving religious (let alone multi-religious) goals.

Religion and politics mix but there are times when I would hesitate to say X political party represents religion. Parties are a coalition that puts forward a broad list of concerns/agenda. Sometimes parties are eager to embrace religious groups in forming a coalition but it would be a mistake (at least from what I have seen here in the US) to assume all religious voters belong to one party or another or that a political party only represents religious groups.

 

Freemasonry. To be a Freemason, you must believe in God. Your religion doesn't matter. While we're on the subject, you might want to do a quick google search on interfaith coalitions. There are thousands of locally based interfaith coalitions in the United States alone, and a great many national interfaith coalitions as well.

Yes you did. You very clearly offered that argument in post #110.

I had just finished stating:

You're response was:

While your argument may have sucked, flatly failing to prove that atheists do typically organize around atheism or a common set of values (since most atheists are not members of American Atheists, and I clearly used the word "typically" in my post), you still proffered the argument. You've also proffered that same argument several times in the other atheism thread. If you insist, I'll bring in post numbers and quotes to back that up.

If you wish, I'll even grant that perhaps you only unintentionally implied -- over and over and over and over -- that atheists share a common set of values, simultaneously oblivious to the fact that not one person was contesting that atheistic disbelief in God was somewhat uniform, and blind to the fact that they were instead arguing that their values were not uniform. I'll grant that, but if that is really the case, it won't speak well of your intelligence or reading comprehension...

 

Drew, atheism is a common set of values. Ok, so it's a set of one, but I count it as the same. A disbelief in gods is a common value, and it's exactly what American Atheists shares. They may share more detailed applications of it than atheism in general, but they also share that.

So, no, I've never argued that all atheists share anything more in common than their disbelief in gods.


As for the theist organization arguements, there are some points there. I'm iffy about the political conneciton, because a political party, regardless of what it's called, is often a mass collection of some of the values of everyone on board, and rarely agrees 100% with anyone other than the party leaders (and often not even them). As has been stated, despite the GOP's large Christian base, it isn't a Christian party, and has done some very un-Christian things. Likewise, just because non-Christian theists support such a party doesn't mean that it's a mass-theist organization, just that it has political appeal beyond it's founding religion.

The inter-faith coalitions are also an interesting point. The one's that I've heard of are always intended to be a sort of meeting-ground for different faiths, often oppositional ones. Whether you can call that theist in general or simply a treaty-negotiation (of sorts), I don't know. The UN is definitely an international body, but I don't think the Treaty of Versaille counts as one.

Freemasons are an exellent point, though. I had completely forgotten about them (not that I usually pay any attention to them in the first place).

Given all those arguements, though, I think you've proven your point well.

 

A disbelief in a god is not a "value". It may form the basis for a set of values (or more accurately, a basis for not holding values which are based on a belief in a god), but it is not, in and of itself, a value.

 

Here we go again, and I'm sure people will disagree:
Value:

Emphasis mine.

 

... and you just supported Splunge with your overly long list of definitions.

 

A disbelief in god is a boolean returning false.

 

What he said. Disbelief in God is (the lack of) a belief. It is not the "value" you make it out to be.

 

... Crud. I just re-read that link. I thought it said 'idea', not 'ideal'. Oh, what a difference an 'l' can make.

Ok, I misused 'value', both here and in the previous post (which Drew correctly misinterpreted?). I stand corrected. My point remains that people do organize around atheism, though.

EDIT: On reconcideration, do you consider it organizing around an idea if the people organize around only one sub-set of it? Given that 'atheism' can, depending on your interpretation, mean either the general non-belief, or the specific disbelief in gods, is an organization founded around the latter an 'atheist' organization? If not, what do you call it? Are the numerous Catholic charities Christian ones, or do they not count because they only accept a singular subset of their values?

On re-reconcideration, I think that last point really clarifies it. I don't think anyone would claim that Catholic Charities, USA is not a Christian organization, centered around Christian beliefs. If it works for one grouping (i.e. one group may be labeled by the larger group that it belongs to), then it works for others as well.

 

Sure. American Atheists is a perfect example. But as was pointed out earlier, the vast majority of atheists don't belong to any such group. Nor is a broad set of moral codes and values being put forward by such a group based on atheism. I don't think the same holds true for theists. So I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

 

I never argued that atheists put forth a broad set of moral codes. I don't think that has much of anything to do with it.

 

Actually I think I may have pointed that out-and I put it forward with the assertion that not all atheists agree. Neither all religions or religious people part of one religion agree either.

Note that some prominent Atheist speakers put forward an ideology that includes what it views as a moral code/proper understanding of actions and direction for them. Many Christian (or insert religion here) speakers have done the same.

I referred to (in a different thread) some of the negative side of that with references to religious groups that promote a dim view of people who are not members of their religion and atheist groups that promote a dim view of people who belong to a religion.

EDIT: I went further in attempting to define a subgroup of atheists with the term "Atheist Fundamentalists". It doesn't refer to all atheists but refers to a subgroup.

As a side note. I think religions can bring forwards or push a certain set of values. But that doesn't mean that a member of a religion has no capacity for thinking about if a given set of values (or each value in that set) is truly worthwhile. In the same token an atheist is not immune to the rest of society and incapable of absorbing at least some of the code of behavior of that society. The level of individualism and social influence over people is flexible, or at least not as clearly defined as you may think.